Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Will Bouwman]

...when I croak, it will be final...

That is a very strong possibility, I don't think quantum immortality is going to save us. Consciousness is a funny old thing though.

There is zero connection which negates any personal immortality as Everett supposed. If not true, what need would there be to speculate on the matter?

I would be more persuaded if there were at least one person who is older than 150 say; a Neanderthal perhaps. Come to think of it...

Just my two and half cents worth of useless assumptions. Like Socrates, I know that I know nothing...or was that Sergeant Schultz?

They are both estimable examples of intellectual virtue.

[Dubious]

...when I croak, it will be final...

That is a very strong possibility, I don't think quantum immortality is going to save us. Consciousness is a funny old thing though.

There is zero connection which negates any personal immortality as Everett supposed. If not true, what need would there be to speculate on the matter?

I would be more persuaded if there were at least one person who is older than 150 say; a Neanderthal perhaps. Come to think of it...

Just my two and half cents worth of useless assumptions. Like Socrates, I know that I know nothing...or was that Sergeant Schultz?

They are both estimable examples of intellectual virtue.

My mistake, I haven't used the word "statistical" in the right context. Should have looked befored I leaped! I'm usually more careful than that.

[Will Bouwman]

Let him without fuckups cast the first stone.

[Immanuel Can]

...quantum mechanics is incomplete...we do not understand the mechanism...

But, as I recently said to Alexis Jacobi, you have to distinguish between the micro and the macro.

That, I'm sure you agree, seriously challenges causality at the micro level.

How can you make these claims?

An "incomplete" theory "seriously challenges causality"? "We don't understand the mechanism," but the mechanism is supposed to be the reason we ought to doubt causality? And then, "you have to distinguish between the micro and the macro," but we're going to use uncertainty at the micro level to undermine confidence in the macro phenomena?

You have to admit yourself that that hardly adds up. Even "at the micro level," how strong could that supposition be? Rather, the warranted assumption is that the paradox we observe is probably a function of the "incompleteness" of the theory itself. Is that not perfectly obvious?

...you can do science in a non-causal paradigm...If you don't understand that, I can try and explain further.

Absolutely. I'll need an example of how you think we could do science if we can't possibly know that any given cause is even probabilistically linked to the observed effect. That, I am most eager to hear.

If, on the other you continue as if I hadn't said it, I won't waste any more time on you."

Yes. I had a kid on my block who thought like that. "If you won't play my way, I'm taking my ball and going home."

But cool your jets. I've addressed your claims. Now the ball is in your court.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Let him without fuckups cast the first stone.

Frankly, my arm is tired.

[Will Bouwman]

...quantum mechanics is incomplete...we do not understand the mechanism...

But, as I recently said to Alexis Jacobi, you have to distinguish between the micro and the macro.

That, I'm sure you agree, seriously challenges causality at the micro level.

How can you make these claims?

An "incomplete" theory "seriously challenges causality"?

No Mr Can, you do not understand; it is Einstein, Poldolsky and Rosen who argued that quantum mechanics is incomplete, believing there must be local hidden variables to explain the behaviour of entangled particles. So that is not a claim that I have made.

"We don't understand the mechanism," but the mechanism is supposed to be the reason we ought to doubt causality?

Again Mr Can, you do not understand; the challenge to causality in this example comes from Bell's Theorem. So that is not a claim that I have made.

And then, "you have to distinguish between the micro and the macro," but we're going to use uncertainty at the micro level to undermine confidence in the macro phenomena?

Not only do you not understand, you clearly have forgotten this:

On the macro scale, you can safely ignore the problem of induction for most events. It is not 'probable' that if you drop a brick it will fall; it will fall because there is demonstrably a measurable force that acts on two or more bodies, called gravity.

Not only is that not a claim I have made, it is one I have specifically denied.

I've addressed your claims.

No Mr Can, through a combination of dismal comprehension, woeful logic and fading memory, you made them up.

[mickthinks]

lol

I regard Manny’s inability to read as the biggest problem between us. I believe it is willful. He is the personification of bad faith.

[Will Bouwman]

lol

I regard Manny’s inability to read as the biggest problem between us. I believe it is willful. He is the personification of bad faith.

Well, he has the petulance of a toddler, so sometimes I don't think he can help it. I kinda think there is something pathological though; he is so convinced of his convictions he simply doesn't understand how anyone could challenge them. Here for example:

...the warranted assumption is that the paradox we observe is probably a function of the "incompleteness" of the theory itself. Is that not perfectly obvious?

This is priceless:

If, on the other you continue as if I hadn't said it, I won't waste any more time on you."

Yes. I had a kid on my block who thought like that. "If you won't play my way, I'm taking my ball and going home."

I ask you about a "problem," and you just channel it into a petty personal gripe. Hence, there's no point in spending any further energy on an exchange.

[Will Bouwman]

Let him without fuckups cast the first stone.

Frankly, my arm is tired.

Have you tried wanking with the other one?

[Immanuel Can]

No Mr Can, you do not understand; it is Einstein, Poldolsky and Rosen who argued that quantum mechanics is incomplete, believing there must be local hidden variables to explain the behaviour of entangled particles. So that is not a claim that I have made.

So, not you, but the experts you cite now support my point that our understanding of quantum mechanics is incomplete -- and this passes for a defense, in your world? All you're showing is that you've used a poorly-understood observation and theory at the micro level to deny the reality of a universal phenomenon observable at the macro level. And now you say it's not your own realization, but the realization backed by the expertise of Einstein, Poldolsky and Rosen...

If you defend your point that way any more vigorously, it will collapse completely, it seems.

[Will Bouwman]

No Mr Can, you do not understand; it is Einstein, Poldolsky and Rosen who argued that quantum mechanics is incomplete, believing there must be local hidden variables to explain the behaviour of entangled particles. So that is not a claim that I have made.

So, not you, but the experts you cite now support my point that our understanding of quantum mechanics is incomplete...

Yes Mr Can, in 1935 those particular experts proposed a thought experiment in defence of hidden variables which, if they could be shown experimentally, might fill in some gaps in quantum mechanics. None of them had any suggestion for how a local hidden variable might actually work, much less an actual experiment and, frankly, I don't think you're the person to receive the baton from Einstein. Subsequent experts, John Stewart Bell for instance who, despite my mentioning him repeatedly, you apparently have never heard of, demonstrated with a mathematical proof that local hidden variables cannot explain reality. Many subsequent experts have performed incredibly clever and accurate experiments all of which confirm Bell. No experiment in this context, has ever found evidence for local hidden variables.
Now, Mr Can, since you have no idea what you are talking about, I will throw you this sop: yer might want to make a case for non-local hidden variables, but to be honest, that's way out of your league and you are better off sticking with 'God done it.'

[Immanuel Can]

No Mr Can, you do not understand; it is Einstein, Poldolsky and Rosen who argued that quantum mechanics is incomplete, believing there must be local hidden variables to explain the behaviour of entangled particles. So that is not a claim that I have made.

So, not you, but the experts you cite now support my point that our understanding of quantum mechanics is incomplete...

Yes Mr Can...I don't think you're the person to receive the baton from Einstein.

I never said I was. Nor do I have to be. It doesn't take a master physicist to know when evidence A is sufficient to make claim B, and when it's not. It requires careful thinking. That's all.

You have now established, by both your own account and that of the experts you have invoked, that your skepticism about causality is based on nothing more than uncertainties in relation to quantum-level phenomena. Basic thinking suggests the dismissing of an observable macro-phenomenon, especially one upon which so much depends, based on nothing more than the discovery there's something science does not yet understand about the microcosm is a perilous move, logically speaking.

Yet you claim to know what the implications of that imperfect theory are; for how else could you know what it is alleged to show about causality? You couldn't. And it was your claim that this incomplete theory "challenges" causality, not mine. So that assertion is yours to defend, if you can.

On what grounds do you find quantum theory, though you admit its inconclusiveness, rationally "challenges" causality; and, assuming you can and do answer that, how do you suppose science and technology are possible once causality is ripped out of their hands? Those were my questions...and they still are.

[Will Bouwman]

Basic thinking suggests the dismissing of an observable macro-phenomenon, especially one upon which so much depends, based on nothing more than the discovery there's something science does not yet understand about the microcosm is a perilous move, logically speaking.

Again:

On the macro scale, you can safely ignore the problem of induction for most events. It is not 'probable' that if you drop a brick it will fall; it will fall because there is demonstrably a measurable force that acts on two or more bodies, called gravity.

You have forgotten the context. You claim your infinite regress argument proves there must be a first cause. My point being that even if your argument is sound, quantum mechanics allows for uncaused quantum fluctuations. If you cannot rule out that the universe might be a product of a quantum fluctuation, you can't claim uncaused cause as a sound premise with which to prove god.

[Immanuel Can]

Basic thinking suggests the dismissing of an observable macro-phenomenon, especially one upon which so much depends, based on nothing more than the discovery there's something science does not yet understand about the microcosm is a perilous move, logically speaking.

Again:

On the macro scale, you can safely ignore the problem of induction for most events. It is not 'probable' that if you drop a brick it will fall; it will fall because there is demonstrably a measurable force that acts on two or more bodies, called gravity.

Yes, I already read that. And I already answered it. Ceteris paribus, remember?

...quantum mechanics allows for uncaused quantum fluctuations.

No, you don't know that they're "uncaused." Even Einstein didn't know that, as you have already asserted.

What we do know is that things behave oddly at the micro level: nobody knows what it really indicates, right now. It seems to me that you're trying to draw a conclusion that the world's greatest physicists are too modest to draw. So you'll forgive me if I have to ask how you became certain of the alleged consequences of observations that even they don't know how to process. Have you achieved what they have so far failed to achieve?

If not, it's certain you've no sufficient basis for "challenging" causality. And causality continues to be observable, even as you've pointed out, at the macro level. So whatever quantum observations imply, nobody knows right now. All we do know is that we don't know how to interpret some things we see at the micro level. And I submit to you that we should wait until science itself has some definite pronouncements on the implications of quantum observations, before we perform any task so ambitious as beginning to doubt such observable phenomena as causality. There is definitely insufficient warrant to "challenge" causality at the moment.

Still, let us suppose you had actually exceeded all those physicists you cited, and that you now stand possessed of the certainty they lacked. Now the question becomes, how can we have a science or technology which has no dependence on causal attributions? Indeed, we might add, how would science even be able recognize an anomaly like quantum fluctuations unless we already knew that ordinarily, causality applies to such things?

And that's was my second question, the one you have yet to address.

[Fanman]

If we break things down to their most fundamental “action,” “passive state,” or condition, existence (or the universe) is progressing. I don’t attribute a direction to that progression, even though “forward” is the intuitive metaphor.

Within that ongoing state of progress, rather than using causality or randomness as foundational reference frames, wouldn’t it be more coherent to say that the constituents of reality are constantly undergoing changes of state?

Framed this way, we avoid the conflict between causality and randomness — both of which may be human projections imposed onto reality to make sense of things at that scale.

My framing acknowledges reality as a continuous existence of state‑change — with causality and randomness operating as functional tools for interpretation rather than ontological absolutes.