From: ingles@cclittle.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: what did god do before creation
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 17:15:54 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: world,public


In article <1992Apr6.142754.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> In article <-#g+cAB@engin.umich.edu>, ingles@finch.engin.umich.edu writes:
> > 
> > In article <1992Mar31.002618.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>, pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> >> In article <eaiaiB2w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) writes:
> >> > pralmo01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
> >> >> Joe:  Look if you don't buy the principle you don't buy it.  The last thing
> >> >> I want you to do is buy it only becuase I said it.  The principle is:
> >> >>           Nothing causes nothing, only something can cause something.
> >> > 
> >> > Doesn't the fact that this principle is demonstrably false make it rather
> >> > unlikely that we're going to buy it?
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > mathew
> >> > 
> >> What?  Have you controlled for all of reality to make sure there are no
> >> causes you're missing?
> >> 
> >> Joe Deasy
> > 
> Ray Ingles:
> >  Let me put it this way: As far as our best understanding goes, there
> > are uncaused events and something can come from nothing. According
> > to QM, a very successful theory in science, this is so.
> 
> First of all, your 'best understanding' is not the way I see things.
> Secondly, QM doesn't say "Something comes from nothing":  'something'
> and 'nothing' are not QM terminology.  Now if you mean, a particle may
> tunnel from here to there at any second, well that tells me that that 
> particle started over there and came over here.  Now it is true that some
> events are unpredictable, but so far as we know, certain conservation
> laws are not violated, so that something never comes from nothing, it
> always takes energy.

 Ah. I see. I assumed you were somewhat familiar with QM. I see I
was wrong.
 Have you ever heard of a 'virtual particle?' According to QM, due
to the Uncertainty Principle you cannot ever be *sure* that a given
region of space is empty. Indeed, even in 'empty space' pairs of
particles are constantly being 'created' and 'destroyed.'
 I.e. in a certain region of vacuum, a positron and an electron
might appear, then immediately anihilate each other and disappear.
The duration of this event is inversely related to the mass. An
electron-positron pair would exist for much less than a nanosecond
(I think) and a 'virtual neutron' far less, and a "virtual chair"
would exist for an unimaginably short time.
 Now, the time and mass constraints conspire to hide this effect,
for the most part. Conservation of mass/energy is continually
violated for microscopic instants, but overall the energy avreages
constant.
 Just beacuse they are normally impossible to detect does not mean
theve 'vacuum fluctuations' are without effect. This is a prime
component of the "Hawking Effect" where black holes are projected
to radiate energy and they are integral to some theories of how
forces are carried between particles.

> Special case:  A miracle caused by God.  Do we then say that the event was
> uncaused, simply because we don't observe the cause?
> 
> It seems to me Ray, that you start out by *assuming* there isn't any cause
> to events and then you say I'm wrong to intuit otherwise because, as
> you observe, there are no causes to some events.
> 
> Joe Deasy

 I hope I have disabused you of the notion that I am "assuming"
without reason that 'there isn't any cause to events.'

Sincerely,

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