Those are just evidence that the universe once existed in a highly compacted state of extremely low entropy. It is not evidence that the universe had a “beginning” of the sort you are suggesting.
3 Likes
Those are all evidence for the universe being hotter and denser in the past. None of them are evidence for the universe at some point being non-existent, nor that it has an actual beginning of time.
What they all have in common is that they are just evidence for the universe being smaller, hotter, and denser, than it is now, and that the universe we see today expanded from that hotter, smaller, and denser state. That’s it. The changes in redshit with distance implies an expanding universe, so extrapolating backwards we infer that everything used to be closer together. How much closer together? Well if it was really close together, we would have been in some sort of plasma state, which predicts the existence of the CMBR once the universe cooled down as it expanded. Same goes for the distribution of light elements during the period of so-called big bang nucleosynthesis(which also implies a particular spectral type for the first generations of stars to form). Again, that does not logically imply an ultimate beginning to time, nor a coming into existence from nothing.
The inference of an ultimate beginning(both in the sense of a first moment of time, and for a coming into being by transitioning from a state of absolutely nothing) is, and always were, completely hypothetical extrapolations. We don’t have to assume such states of affairs to explain what we see.
You’ve got it the wrong way around. There is no evidence that the universe actually had a beginning, that’s an extrapolation. There are other models, such as cyclic universes, eternal universes, multiverses and what have you. It’s not really important for my argument though, because even if our universe has a finite age and thus a “beginning” in a first moment of time, it still doesn’t mean it was at some point non-existant.
The only thing implied by the above lines of evidence is that the universe was smaller in the past. None of them logically imply a beginning, nor even a first moment of time. It is some times extrapolated backwards, from the inferred rate of expansion, that the universe had a first moment of time at some point where it might have been compressed into a singularity.
But a first moment of time is not the same thing as not existing. Neither is a singularity. The singularity is also a completely hypothetical extrapolation, which is also not actually logically implied by an expanding universe giving rise to the CMBR and the distribution of light elements in the early universe.
Yeah that has been argued, though those arguments fail for all sorts of reasons. It doesn’t even matter though, because those arguments merely conclude that there must have been a first moment of time(a universe with a finite past). None of them entail the non-existence of the universe. Hence there is still no need to invent causes to explain some sort of coming into being from nothing.
There are, but they’re irrelevant to my arguments. All we need to do is look at the evidence we currently have, and understand that we have no good scientific justification for thinking that there was at some point nothing in existence. Even if we assume the universe has a finite age in the past, it still doesn’t follow it was once not even in existence.
I agree. The brute fact assertion has no explanatory power, and seems to just be an assertion.
If you want an answer to the question “why is there something rather than nothing?” then you’re out of luck, because nobody knows. Some people want various answers to be true, like “God made something”, but then that just raises the question why God exists rather than nothing.
The fact is, we just don’t know. Too bad. We just have to live with it. There are things we don’t know.
2 Likes
Perhaps a good analogy is our own birthdates, or the moment of our conception if people prefer. Just because each of us had a beginning does not mean that we were uncaused, or that the universe began to exist at that moment.
So tell me, why when I make an obvious inference that there is a nonphysical cause for the first physical event I get complaints. Yet when a completely disconnected inference is made from the double slit experiment for a quantum particle existing as a wave function before measurement no body seems to object?
Jim, with all due respect, it seems to me that a more fruitful of engaging this question would be first to try to learn quantum mechanics seriously and understand the mathematics and experimental data that led physicists in the 1920s to formulate the modern theory of quantum mechanics. Now, there are open questions about the proper way to interpret quantum mechanics - are the particle’s properties really undetermined until measurement, or does it secretly have them, just like in classical physics? These are legitimate questions. However, even if you have certain philosophical instincts for interpreting QM in a certain way, you’re not going to be taken seriously until you seriously understand the evidence first. Do you understand what I mean?
4 Likes
You haven’t made any such inference as far as I can see. Your non-physical cause seems to be baseless.
It isn’t completely disconnected. The pattern on the photographic film is consistent with the pattern expected from waves interfering with one another.
If you think I am wrong, then please tell me what the pattern on the photographic film should look like if there were waves interfering with one another.
4 Likes
Friendly suggestion: Stop making a fool of yourself by trying to discuss things regarding which you clearly have no understanding.
4 Likes
Well, to a certain extent I would agree with you. However to me there’s a big difference between questioning a scientist about a scientific position, and questioning a scientist about a philosophical position in science. Unless the scientist has a PhD in philosophy he’s more or less as much of a layperson as anyone else when it comes to philosophical questions.
And the questions I’m raising deal with philosophical issues in science, not the science itself. I have no objections to the findings of physics when it comes to relativistic or quantum mechanics. It’s the theoretical positions, which are neither verifiable nor falsifiable, that I’m questioning.
So I think I’m justified in questioning the philosophical positions of the scientists on this forum with whom I’m having or have had discussions with. And I’m pretty sure that most of the questions I’m raising are questions that professional philosophers have raised in one form or another.
Now if I were talking to someone with a PhD in philosophy I would obviously need to defer, or at best quote other professional philosophers if I wanted to raise questions about his position. But, as far as I’m aware, there aren’t any professional philosophers that are commenting on my posts, at least none that I’ve raised any issues with as far as I know.
What is your definition of an inference?
What is your definition of baseless?
So? What does that have to do with the immaterial abstract object called a wave function existing as a particle prior to measurement? Where is the connection?
I’m not sure what you are asking? I’m not disputing the pattern you’ve presented. I’m disputing the claim that immaterial abstract wave functions can ever exist as material concrete quantum particles.
So is it the consensus of philosophers that the wave function of a quantum particle does not exist?
How can an “immaterial abstract object” leave an interference pattern on a screen?
4 Likes
Once we couch these ideas in terms of scientific evidence then we are working within the confines of the philosophy defined by methodological naturalism. When you ask for verifiable and repeatable observations we are well within the wheelhouse of empiricism and hypothesis testing. Within that philosophy, the multiple experiments testing for the wave function of quantum particles offer mountains of evidence.
Those positions are verifiable and falsifiable within science. If you are rejecting the scientific method altogether, then you need to justify doing so and at least offer a better method for determining how nature works.
The scientific method would be a good start.
There is no logic or reasoning that connects your premises with your conclusion. On top of that, you haven’t justified many of your premises, such as the universe having to come from something non-physical.
When we have observations that match what a wave function would produce then those observations are evidence for those wave functions. It seems pretty obvious to me.
Based on what?
4 Likes
Jim, all competent professional practitioners of philosophy who work in issues related to quantum mechanics have a thorough understanding of the mathematics and empirical science. As seen in this thread, many of your questions would be considered basic scientific questions, not deep philosophical ones. You think you’re only questioning philosophical theoretical positions, but science consists of both taking experimental data and formulating the theory that coherently interprets them. Even if you want to question the demarcation between theoretical physics and philosophy, you need to understand both areas first. (Hint: it’s mostly the mathematics.)
You’re right that many scientists don’t have philosophical training. But they have a leg up over complete laymen in discussing the philosophy of QM, since at least they understand QM in a scientific way. If you understand neither the science nor the philosophy, then what is the point?
To take a comparison: it would be pointless to discuss different models of original sin if you haven’t had any training in theology and don’t have an idea of what “sin” means, the importance of original sin within theology, or familiarity with the biblical passages that are commonly brought up regarding with original sin.
3 Likes
No, Jim, it’s clear to many of us that you are mounting an attack on the science itself.
The bottom line is denying evolution. It’s obvious from this conversation:
1 Like
That I don’t know. But I would dare to say that there would be a pretty good chance that the consensus of philosophers would be that an immaterial abstract object existing as a material concrete object would be a logical contradiction.
Well, @dga471 can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe technically it’s after the measuring device is introduced that the supposed wave function “collapses” into a wave and the interference pattern appears. So it’s no longer a “so called” wave function being “observed” hitting the detection screen once it’s been measured by the measuring device.
But without the introduction of the measuring device, it’s suppose to be the wave function that “magically” transforms into a particle as it is “observed” when it passes through the detection screen. How does a supposed wave function “magically” transform into a particle once it’s been “observed”? You tell me. Sounds like science fiction to me.
Science depends on logic, it doesn’t define it. As a scientist, you can and should exhaust all possible physical explanations. But that doesn’t change how the laws of logic operate regarding abductive inferences.
It’s pretty obvious to me that once you start dealing with abductive inferences you leave the realm of verifiable/falsifiable science and enter the realm of the philosophical, i.e. what can’t be or hasn’t been observed. So I would argue methodological naturalism is an arbitrary constraint that when imposed on philosophical discourse is unjustified.
I disagree. It’s impossible to verify or falsify something you cannot observe unless you want to redefine those terms. You can only increase or decrease it’s plausibility through evidence, or show it to be logically or metaphysically impossible. If the latter is what you mean by verify/falsify then I’m OK with that. Otherwise it’s not possible without redefining the terms since it cannot be observed.
That’s not a definition of inference. It may involve inference, but it certainly isn’t the definition of inference.
I don’t see how you can say that. No physical existence = no physical cause. 0+0=0 No way around it that I can see.
You’re just assuming that a wave function can exist as a material concrete object. I would say that’s circular reasoning. You haven’t provided any evidence with which to base your assumption on. What evidence is there that a wave function can exist as a material concrete object? So far you haven’t produced any that I’m aware of.
How about the fact that it’s looking an awful lot like a logical contradiction.
Sorry, I just beg to differ with you on this. Practically everyday as jurors, laypersons have to make life and death decisions about conflicting “expert” opinions being presented by both parties in a criminal case. The jurors are instructed to always focus on the actual evidence and choose between the expert opinions based on what makes the most sense of the evidence.
So no, I would argue in most cases, including those involving science, it’s not a requirement to have a PhD in order to make an informed and sensible decision when looking at evidence. The most important requirement for which you don’t need a PhD is knowledge of the relevant evidence, in this case the objective and verifiable observations. From there, by thinking seriously about the evidence any reasonable person is arguably capable of coming to a justifiable conclusion of what makes the most sense of that evidence.
And I’m afraid it’s just a mistake, in my opinion, to think that the mathematical formulas play a role here. They just don’t. The evidence, in the type of cases in question, is the objective and verifiable observations. Formulas aren’t observations, they are simply descriptions of observation. They play no role in determining reality, they simply describe it.
Well, in this case, on one side are the scientific experts on quantum mechanics. What are the experts on the other side? You already conceded that you are a layman with respect to both the science and philosophy of quantum mechanics.
I didn’t say you have to have a PhD. I did say, that you have to take the time to learn about QM sincerely and seriously first.
Different fields have different standards and practices on how to handle different types of evidence. (I already argued this above.) This is why most people need years of training to get accepted as part of the guild. This is also why Joshua is taking a lot of care to run his theological ideas by professional theologians and biblical scholars.
Correct. But the mathematics helps us to organize all the different experimental data into a coherent picture and understand what’s happening in a fundamental way. In this case, the mathematics of quantum mechanics has stood for decades and been vindicated by experiment many times over; in fact, tens of billions of dollars are being invested right now into engineering projects that are based upon its correctness by many commercial and government entities.
And remember that you don’t have a good knowledge of the experimental evidence either. So I’m actually suggesting the mathematics can give you a shortcut in understanding what has been learned for decades from the experimental evidence. Because the mathematics is known to correctly describe reality, it is a powerful tool to understand reality for those of us who are interested in the philosophical issues. It can help us see where the current gaps in understanding are, and where the verified empirical science ends and philosophical speculations begin.
Now, I’m not saying that “the mathematics prove that some events can have no cause, so your argument is wrong.” There are people who propose fully deterministic interpretations of QM. But we can’t discuss these possibilities in a productive way if our knowledge of the science is too rudimentary.
4 Likes
@jim what type of science would you like to learn more about?
1 Like
Yes, I would expect most competent philosophers to understand a simple concept like that. They would be highly unlikely to make an error so foolish as to refer to the wave function of a quantum particle as nothing more than an “abstract concept”.
You’re wrong.
Wrong again. It’s not magic or science fiction. It’s physics.
3 Likes
I think that a better question would be, “Would you like to learn anything about science?”
4 Likes
This is not really how it goes in science. Abduction leads to models, models lead to predictions, predictions lead to observations and observations lead to confirmation or falsification of (parts) of the models. Back to the start, round and round it goes, and hopefully the models become better and better over time. Apart from plain old empiricism there isn’t a lot of philosphy in this method that I can see.
1 Like
So OJ didn’t kill his ex-wife?
@Jim seems steadfast in his determination to ignore the prediction-testing part of that.
Jim’s strategy is basically “Na na na na! I can’t hear you! I’m right, I’m right, I’m right!”
I’m glad he doesn’t bat for my team.
2 Likes