Umm, I do know that quantum particles are not observable, so I would assume that quantum events are not observable either.
One of your problems is a naive understanding of what “observable” means. And a clear misunderstanding of what “quantum particle” means, if it means anything. The only things we observe (meaning visually) are quanta we call photons. Now, nuclear decay can be observed in a cloud or bubble chamber or by looking at the dial on a geiger counter. Electron transition produces photons. In other words, we observe “quantum particles” in the same way we observe anything.
1 Like
What does that mean, to “transcend” physical reality? And how would evidence for it look?
Also, outside of ordinary experience is a can of worms. What exactly defines what constitutes ordinary experience? And why must the supernatural be outside of ordinary experience? Could you not experience supernatural events on a regular basis?
That’s actually unknown. There are some events for which, if there is a cause, the cause isn’t known. It may be true that all events require causes, but how that gets you to the supernatural remains to be seen.
What does it point to, and how does it do that? Be very explicit. Try to present it in the form of a logical argument with premises and a conclusion.
I could accept that for the sake of argument, and yet I have not seen how you get from this, to:
and that it could not have been physical.
Connect the dots for me here. There was a very first physical “event”. I take that to mean there was something physical, and it underwent some sort of change. And this physical thing that changed, which transpired over some duration of time, is what we call the first “physical event”. Okay. Now, how do you get from this to the idea that the supposed cause of this was nonphysical? And even further, how it was supernatural?
2 Likes
I think you need a completely different definition for Super-natural!
Making photons is a quantum event.
As far as I know atoms are the smallest particles that we can observe with a microscope. As I understand it, the only thing we can “observe” of quatum particles are measurements that are made from instruments designed for that purpose. From those measurements abductive inferences are made about quantum particles and their behavior.
To exist independent of and beyond physical reality. And the evidence would look like any other evidence from which an abductive inference can be made.
Ordinary in the sense that it’s an experience that happens on a regular basis to most, if not all of humanity. I’m not aware of anyone who experiences supernatural events on a regular basis, but if there is anyone, it’s certainly rare.
As far as I know, all the scientific evidence, i.e., objective and verifiable observation, shows that physical events require a cause. If there is any to the contrary please let me know what it is.
OK. If you read my op I’ve laid it out there. But let me point out a few problems with your analysis. If there was a cause for the first physical event, there would not be “something physical” in existence logically prior to the event. So the cause would of necessity have to be nonphysical. Otherwise it would have to be self caused which is a logical contradiction.
So as far as I can tell, there are only a few logically possible explanations. Either there is a nonphysical cause, or there is no cause, or it’s a brute fact that has no explanation. Those seem to be the only logically possible explanations that I can see.
Seems coherent to me.
As far as I know we don’t observe photons. We only observe there effects.
I’m seeing a pattern here. When you say “As far as I know” you’re about to bring up a subject you know nothing about. Atoms can be “observed” in some sense using an very special sort of electron microscope, but that isn’t observing in the sense you mean, as there is no light coming off the atoms. The light is generated in the microscope by the collision of electrons with a screen. This is no more indirect than the stuff I’ve been mentioning. The difference between observation and abductive inference is illusory.
I don’t think you know what you mean by “observe”.
2 Likes
Observation: Observation is the active acquisition of information from a primary source. In living beings, observation employs the senses. In science, observation can also involve the perception and recording of data via the use of scientific instruments.
Is that what you mean by observe?
I would say that’s a bit of a controversial statement. Care to explain a bit more?
You can certainly observe single atoms directly by looking at their emitted light in certain situations. Maybe not with the naked eye, but certainly with a camera.
1 Like
I don’t know what that means. Something either exists or it does not, regardless of what it is made.
What do you mean by an inductive inference from evidence? I know what those words mean, but I’m not sure you do. Give an example.
That just makes it all the more mysterious why you want the supernatural do be defined as something outside of ordinary experience.
All you’re doing here is an inductive generalization, which is fine, you just have to be mindful that exceptions to those are possible in principle. And the putative “first physical event” in might be one such exception. How do we find out?
As explained by others here, there are events for which no cause is known(you could ask for example what is the cause of measuring the photon on the left slit on the double slit experiment, instead of the right slit? What caused it to go left?). That doesn’t prove there is none, but it does raise questions about whether your argument rests on a true premise.
Another problem with your inductive generalization is we can simply turn it around like this:
All the scientific evidence, i.e., objective and verifiable observation, shows that physical events require a physical cause. If there is any to the contrary please let me know what it is.
First of all, why not?
Second, suppose there was not, why does that even matter? It is not clear to me why there HAS to be something physical in existence before the first physical event. It is not clear to me that it is even coherent to talk about there being such a thing as a time before the first physical event.
Third, what exactly do you mean by “logically” prior to the event?
You start that sentence with a “so”, but nothing it contains is logically entailed by what you said before it. You are basically just making a list of unconnected assertions.
Why is that a contradiction? Please derive the contradiction for me.
Why can’t there be a physical cause of the first physical event? Seems super simple to me. Just to give an example, suppose the first physical event in history is that two particles of opposite charge, which exist some space apart, move closer together. So the very first “tick” of the clock is that those two particles move nearer each other. The cause of this first event is their mutual physical attraction. They are moving closer together at the first moment of time, because they are electromagnetically attracted to each other. A first physical event with a physical cause.
What’s the problem?
3 Likes
What exactly do you mean by “a first physical event”? What is it you think happened?
1 Like
I’d really be cautious to say that quantum mechanics does away with the idea of causes, as we discussed before: Radioactive decay and causation. The Copenhagen interpretation is by no means the consensus among physicists.
3 Likes
Yes, but it doesn’t seem to be what you mean, since you have rejected the detection of “quantum particles”, which uses scientific instruments.
That’s because, I assume from your posts, you aren’t a scientist and don’t have a clear idea how science works. I’ll wager it isn’t controversial to other scientists.
Sorry, but you’re looking at photons emitted by electrons transitioning to lower energy states, and Jim has denied that counts as observation.
1 Like
All light that you have ever seen (including all light by which you see any other objects) originally came from decaying electronic transitions in atoms. (This was mind-blowing for me when I realized this!)
4 Likes
Talk to Jim. But how about this?: There must be some distant galaxy that’s had gamma ray emissions, some of them coming from nuclear decay, red-shifted into visible light as observed from earth. How about that light?
2 Likes
Well, I thought we were using “light” as referring to electromagnetic radiation mainly in the visible spectrum. But yes, of course they can come from nuclear transitions as well. My point is that they ultimately come from atomic decay of one sort or another.
1 Like
Sure. Just not electron transitions only. And you will note that my hypothetical gamma rays are red-shifted into the visible spectrum.
I’m not sure I follow what you’re getting at here?
Using mechanics as an example of an inductive inference, if something, in this case the mathematical equation, is continually confirmed, but due to human limitations hasn’t been exhaustively confirmed, it is accepted as tentatively true with the understanding that it remains true as long as it continues to be verified, or until such a time that new information can be provided to falsify the claim.
There are a lot of things that are difficult to explain, the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of the DNA code, the complexity of the cell, consciousness, etc. That’s just a common aspect of reality.
Agreed.
All that can be done with past events like this is to look at the relevant evidence and make an abductive inference based on the evidence.
Looking at the evidence, i.e., objective and verifiable observations, there are only examples of events with causes. The quantum interpretations are just that, interpretations of observed measurements, not evidence in themselves.
That’s true. However we can logically infer a nonphysical cause for the first physical event. But it’s logically impossible to infer a physical cause where none exists, which would be the case with the first physical event.
Because the first physical event would bring physical existence into being. Where there is no physical existence to be a cause, which is the case with the first physical event, then it logically follows that the cause would have to be nonphysical.
Not sure I’m following you here.
Logically prior as opposed to chronologically prior. It follows logically that a cause would exist prior to its effect.
Seems like a reasonable and logically connected inference to me. What exactly do you mean by, “nothing it contains is logically entailed by what you said before it.” And, “You are basically just making a list of unconnected assertions.”
Because that would entail self-causation which is, if not logically, at least metaphysically impossible.
That wouldn’t be the first physical event. The particles would not exist logically prior to the first physical event.
If you mean what is an event, that would be a single occurrence of a process which would entail a cause and effect relationship. And I think there was a supernatural cause for the first physical event. What about you?
I haven’t rejected their detection. All I said is that they cannot be observed. I believe that’s not a controversial position.
So if I understand you correctly, you would claim that the existence of the sun is not an objective and verifiable observation, but an abductive inference. If so, it seems unlikely to me that there would be many scientists who hold that view.
Ah, but the definition of “observation” that you just used specifies that detection by an instrument counts as observation. Thus your definition, in practice, is not the definition you cited.
“If I understand you correctly” is another red flag. We may assume that whenever you say this you are incorrect. What I’m saying is that objective and verifiable observations are themselves inductive inferences, though you don’t notice the chain of inference. Consider what happens in sight: a photon strikes your retina, initiating a chemical reaction, which initiates the firing of a neuron. Through a series of nerve impulses, each consisting of an electrical discharge and a release and uptake of some neurotransmitter, with some pre-processing in the retina, a set of signals reach the visual cortex, when processes the signal further and sends signals elsewhere in your brain reporting that you see an image; various parts of your brain then interpret that image to decide what you’re looking at. And so you see that the sun exists. Very few of the elements of this chain can be “observed” in the way you are thinking. We infer them from their visible effects.
1 Like