Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Reasons and Causes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Nice try, but you understood perfectly well - pretending the problem isn't defined is just a dodge - and not a very good one.
    Nice try, but you understand perfectly well - pretending the problem isn't defined is NOT a nice dodge.

    Come back again with a coherent science perspective, and then we can talk.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      Shuny, you DO know this is in philosophy, not Nat Sci, right? The question has to do with whether reason and cause are the same thing - Hume is actually pretty on point - unlike your objection here.
      Yes, but it is a comparison of the philosophical/theological and the scientific perspective of 'nothing.' You actually brought up the scientific view 'What is the nature of the beginning of a singularity?. The comparison between the scientific view of reasons, cause and effect chain of events and outcomes is a real issue here. Yes, the scientific perspective is rooted in the Philosophy of science.

      Still unanswered questions. . .
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Nonsense, this is as true today as it was in his day:

        We cannot justify our assumptions about the future based on past experience unless there is a law that the future will always resemble the past. No such law exists. We can deny the relationship without contradiction and we cannot justify it with experience.
        Nonsense,yes what is reality does not change, but the philosophical and scientific views change over the years,

        . . . Hume does not represent the contemporary scientific view of reason, causes, and the nature of chains of cause and effect outcomes..
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-06-2019, 07:19 AM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Nonsense,yes what is reality does not change, but the philosophical and scientific views change over the years,

          . . . Hume does not represent the contemporary scientific view of reason, causes, and the nature of chains of cause and effect outcomes..
          What are you talking about? You can not logically justify the idea that the future will look like the past. You can only deal with probability.
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            Nice try, but you understand perfectly well - pretending the problem isn't defined is NOT a nice dodge.

            Come back again with a coherent science perspective, and then we can talk.
            OOhh Lookie! A copy Cat trying to hide his mistake!
            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

            My Personal Blog

            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

            Quill Sword

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              Nonsense,yes what is reality does not change, but the philosophical and scientific views change over the years,

              . . . Hume does not represent the contemporary scientific view of reason, causes, and the nature of chains of cause and effect outcomes..
              Psst! This is Philosophy! Pull up your pants!
              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

              My Personal Blog

              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

              Quill Sword

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                Psst! This is Philosophy! Pull up your pants!
                Not a coherent response, Science has a basis in the Philosophy of science.

                Pull up your pants and respond to the questions. Remember you brought up science.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                  OOhh Lookie! A copy Cat trying to hide his mistake!
                  No mistake, Still waiting for a coherent response. Science definitely does not propose 'the singularity that our universe appeared out of nothing.' Some philosophers do support this alternative to the theist claims. This is actually a philosophical question in science how reasons, cause and effect outcomes, and the nature of beginnings in terms of our beginnings.

                  Does this section also exclude theological alternatives in answer to these questions?
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-06-2019, 08:03 PM.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    This is from a philosophical article on the origins of our physical existence.

                    Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/03/26/175352714/the-origin-of-the-universe-from-nothing-everything



                    In the quantum realm, even the lowest energy state, the "vacuum," is not empty. Even if the energy of a quantum system is zero, it is never really zero due to the inherent quantum fluctuations about this state. A zero energy quantum state is as impossible as a perfectly still lake, with absolutely no disturbances on its surface. This quantum jitteriness amounts to fluctuations on the value of the energy; if one of these fluctuations is unstable it may grow big, like a soap bubble that blows itself up. The energy remains zero on average because of a clever interplay between the positive energy of matter and the negative energy of attractive gravity. This is the result that physicists like Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Mikio Kaku and others speak of when they state that the "universe came out of quantum nothingness," or something to that extent.

                    The essential question, though, is whether this is indeed a satisfactory explanation to the question of cosmic origins, or simply part of one. The philosopher David Albert raised similar points in a recent review of Lawrence Krauss's book. Here is Krauss's response.

                    It is obvious that this quantum nothingness is very different from an absolute nothingness. Physicists may shrug this away stating that concepts like absolute nothingness are not scientific and hence have no explanatory value. It is indeed true that there is no such thing as absolute nothingness in science, since the vacuum is pregnant with all sorts of stuff. Any scientific explanation presupposes a whole conceptual structure that is absolutely essential for science to function: energy, space, time, the equations we use, the laws of Nature. Science can't exist without this scaffolding. So, a scientific explanation of the origin of the universe needs to use such concepts to make sense. It necessarily starts from something, which is the best that science can ever hope to do.

                    © Copyright Original Source

                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Not a coherent response, Science has a basis in the Philosophy of science.

                      Pull up your pants and respond to the questions. Remember you brought up science.
                      Poor thing - still haven't figured out reading comprehension, huh?
                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Quill Sword

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        No mistake, Still waiting for a coherent response. Science definitely does not propose 'the singularity that our universe appeared out of nothing.' Some philosophers do support this alternative to the theist claims. This is actually a philosophical question in science how reasons, cause and effect outcomes, and the nature of beginnings in terms of our beginnings.

                        Does this section also exclude theological alternatives in answer to these questions?
                        Translation: OP? What OP?
                        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                        My Personal Blog

                        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                        Quill Sword

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          This is from a philosophical article on the origins of our physical existence.

                          Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/03/26/175352714/the-origin-of-the-universe-from-nothing-everything



                          In the quantum realm, even the lowest energy state, the "vacuum," is not empty. Even if the energy of a quantum system is zero, it is never really zero due to the inherent quantum fluctuations about this state. A zero energy quantum state is as impossible as a perfectly still lake, with absolutely no disturbances on its surface. This quantum jitteriness amounts to fluctuations on the value of the energy; if one of these fluctuations is unstable it may grow big, like a soap bubble that blows itself up. The energy remains zero on average because of a clever interplay between the positive energy of matter and the negative energy of attractive gravity. This is the result that physicists like Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Mikio Kaku and others speak of when they state that the "universe came out of quantum nothingness," or something to that extent.

                          The essential question, though, is whether this is indeed a satisfactory explanation to the question of cosmic origins, or simply part of one. The philosopher David Albert raised similar points in a recent review of Lawrence Krauss's book. Here is Krauss's response.

                          It is obvious that this quantum nothingness is very different from an absolute nothingness. Physicists may shrug this away stating that concepts like absolute nothingness are not scientific and hence have no explanatory value. It is indeed true that there is no such thing as absolute nothingness in science, since the vacuum is pregnant with all sorts of stuff. Any scientific explanation presupposes a whole conceptual structure that is absolutely essential for science to function: energy, space, time, the equations we use, the laws of Nature. Science can't exist without this scaffolding. So, a scientific explanation of the origin of the universe needs to use such concepts to make sense. It necessarily starts from something, which is the best that science can ever hope to do.

                          © Copyright Original Source

                          *emphasis mine

                          NPR...

                          And any problem magically goes away if we put the word 'quantum' in front of it... Except maybe Quantum of Solace...

                          So, where did this 'quantum nothing' come from? Oh, that's right - no where. Since we don't have an answer or any potential for one, we'll just start after the actual origin and run from there. Goal post shifting for the win!
                          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                          My Personal Blog

                          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                          Quill Sword

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                            *emphasis mine

                            NPR...
                            It is a fallacy to 'curse the source' and not address the substance of the reference and the philosophers cited. The source is accurate as far as how the scientists and philosophers consider what the Quantum Nothing is.

                            And any problem magically goes away if we put the word 'quantum' in front of it... Except maybe Quantum of Solace...

                            So, where did this 'quantum nothing' come from? Oh, that's right - no where. Since we don't have an answer or any potential for one, we'll just start after the actual origin and run from there. Goal post shifting for the win!
                            We don't have an answer for where God came from either except for the assertion of belief that God is eternal. We do not have answer or any potential for one other than belief.

                            From the scientific view the Quantum Nothing has no known beginning, simply has been falsified to exist underlying all of our macro physical existence, and whether the Quantum World from which our universe began is eternal or temporal cannot be falsified. It is a view based on the philosophy of science. Some philosophers believe that the Quantum World is boundless, but again there is no way to falsify whether our physical existence has a beginning or not.

                            These represent a philosophy based on science, and one based on a theological belief. 'Arguing from ignorance' based on unknowns cannot justify one over the other.
                            Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-07-2019, 08:36 AM.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              What I was asking was whether or not reasons and rationality are subject to the laws of causality, minus indeterminacy. It's related to the free will question. If the reasons that motivate my actions are all the effects of prior physical events, and if they become causes, like extremely complex billiard ball causation, then what sense does free will make? Even if you allow for indeterminacy of various kinds, that still doesn't allow for free will which would have to include purposeful action done for reasons but that are not necessitated by the past.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                                What I was asking was whether or not reasons and rationality are subject to the laws of causality, minus indeterminacy. It's related to the free will question. If the reasons that motivate my actions are all the effects of prior physical events, and if they become causes, like extremely complex billiard ball causation, then what sense does free will make? Even if you allow for indeterminacy of various kinds, that still doesn't allow for free will which would have to include purposeful action done for reasons but that are not necessitated by the past.
                                Okay - my short answer is no. But let me think about how you're framing this so I can give you an answer that addresses it properly.
                                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                                My Personal Blog

                                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                                Quill Sword

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X