Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Is Cause Certain?

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2012 11:41:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The short answer is no simply because there is no way that we can make universal inferences based on only what we see. What we see if only a small portion of what can be seen and is in no way a complete random sampling of everything that there is.

Hume proposed an interesting argument that:

1. We see everything always have a cause.

2. We therefore expect everything to always have a cause.

3. We named these principles "universal" because all of our experiences prove it.

However, our experience are in no way representative of universality. Therefore, nothing that we infer about this world can logically be applied to places which we haven't observed (Big Bang).

Thoughts?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 1:08:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/5/2012 11:41:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
The short answer is no simply because there is no way that we can make universal inferences based on only what we see.

What we see if only a small portion of what can be seen and is in no way a complete random sampling of everything that there is.


Hume proposed an interesting argument that:

1. We see everything always have a cause.

2. We therefore expect everything to always have a cause.

3. We named these principles "universal" because all of our experiences prove it.

However, our experience are in no way representative of universality. Therefore, nothing that we infer about this world can logically be applied to places which we haven't observed (Big Bang).

Thoughts?

The Fool: Would you be okay with, making mistakes? or is that out of the question. Alot of people. Already have thier mind made up before a discussion. I don't mean this sarcastically, but its something I notice.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 11:06:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/6/2012 1:08:00 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/5/2012 11:41:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
The short answer is no simply because there is no way that we can make universal inferences based on only what we see. What we see if only a small portion of what can be seen and is in no way a complete random sampling of everything that there is.



Hume proposed an interesting argument that:

1. We see everything always have a cause.

2. We therefore expect everything to always have a cause.

3. We named these principles "universal" because all of our experiences prove it.

However, our experience are in no way representative of universality. Therefore, nothing that we infer about this world can logically be applied to places which we haven't observed (Big Bang).

Thoughts?

The Fool: Would you be okay with, making mistakes? or is that out of the question. Alot of people. Already have thier mind made up before a discussion. I don't mean this sarcastically, but its something I notice.

I don't see how this has to do with anything.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 7:23:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/6/2012 11:06:24 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/6/2012 1:08:00 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/5/2012 11:41:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
The short answer is no simply because there is no way that we can make universal inferences based on only what we see. What we see if only a small portion of what can be seen and is in no way a complete random sampling of everything that there is.



Hume proposed an interesting argument that:

1. We see everything always have a cause.

2. We therefore expect everything to always have a cause.

3. We named these principles "universal" because all of our experiences prove it.

However, our experience are in no way representative of universality. Therefore, nothing that we infer about this world can logically be applied to places which we haven't observed (Big Bang).

Thoughts?

The Fool: Would you be okay with, making mistakes or is that out of the question? I don't mean this sarcastically, but its something I notice. Alot of people already have thier mind made up before a discussion. So it makes it usless to even have on, if you are simple going to get upset and not be able to take in critiscm with will better help you understand Humes argument?


I don't see how this has to do with anything.

The Fool: That is the problem..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 11:08:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: http://www.debate.org...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2012 11:28:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/5/2012 11:41:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
The short answer is no simply because there is no way that we can make universal inferences based on only what we see. What we see if only a small portion of what can be seen and is in no way a complete random sampling of everything that there is.

Hume proposed an interesting argument that:

1. We see everything always have a cause.

2. We therefore expect everything to always have a cause.

3. We named these principles "universal" because all of our experiences prove it.

However, our experience are in no way representative of universality. Therefore, nothing that we infer about this world can logically be applied to places which we haven't observed (Big Bang).

Thoughts?

It's amazing that humans just see what they see and experience what they experience, and then assume that because they observe it and it happens to them, the entire universe must also abide by this standard.

Like all animals, homo sapiens consistently projects its own limited experiences into its limited understanding of the universe, which is inappropriate and fallacious.

In my opinion, this reasoning rejects the oldest and most common argument for God - "how did the universe come to be, it must have had a cause, that cause must be God."

Another simple philosophical question that rejects that argument is: What caused God? Why can't the same standards theists apply to God's lack of cause apply to the universe?

Interesting thoughts.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 6:32:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/5/2012 11:41:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
The short answer is no simply because there is no way that we can make universal inferences based on only what we see. What we see if only a small portion of what can be seen and is in no way a complete random sampling of everything that there is.

Hume proposed an interesting argument that:

1. We see everything always have a cause.

2. We therefore expect everything to always have a cause.

3. We named these principles "universal" because all of our experiences prove it.

However, our experience are in no way representative of universality. Therefore, nothing that we infer about this world can logically be applied to places which we haven't observed (Big Bang).

Thoughts?

My initial thought is that was not Hume's argument.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 12:15:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 6:32:38 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/5/2012 11:41:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
The short answer is no simply because there is no way that we can make universal inferences based on only what we see. What we see if only a small portion of what can be seen and is in no way a complete random sampling of everything that there is.

Hume proposed an interesting argument that:

1. We see everything always have a cause.

2. We therefore expect everything to always have a cause.

3. We named these principles "universal" because all of our experiences prove it.

However, our experience are in no way representative of universality. Therefore, nothing that we infer about this world can logically be applied to places which we haven't observed (Big Bang).

Thoughts?

My initial thought is that was not Hume's argument.

The Fool: Not even CLOSE! lol
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 12:23:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 6:32:38 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/5/2012 11:41:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
The short answer is no simply because there is no way that we can make universal inferences based on only what we see. What we see if only a small portion of what can be seen and is in no way a complete random sampling of everything that there is.

Hume proposed an interesting argument that:

1. We see everything always have a cause.

2. We therefore expect everything to always have a cause.

3. We named these principles "universal" because all of our experiences prove it.

However, our experience are in no way representative of universality. Therefore, nothing that we infer about this world can logically be applied to places which we haven't observed (Big Bang).

Thoughts?

My initial thought is that was not Hume's argument.

Humes argument went like this:

-I see something happen several times

-I therefore expect it to happen again

-I get into the mental habit of expecting it to happen

-I am tempted to project this mental habit out onto the world in the form of a "law" of physics.

Pretty much the same thing.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 9:57:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What usually happens in science is that a theory is formed based upon what we observe, the circumstances are found that were previously unobserved and the theory is found to be limited. for example, we observe that no matter how fast an object is moving, it always can be moved faster. It turns out, however, that the speed of light is an upper limit. That doesn't contradict what we observed.

We observe that something cannot be created from nothing. But the new theory is that new energy, vacuum energy, is created at the edge of the expanding universe. it is created from truly nothing -- not from a vacuum or a quantum field, but from non-existence. Vacuum energy is not proved, but scientists accept the possibility that it might be true, because it does not contradict any observation. It explains the acceleratig rate of the expansion of the universe.

Random events like quantum fluctuation appear to be uncaused. One theory is that they have a cause, but the case in in higher dimensions that we cannot observe. Science accepts the possibility that they are uncaused, because that does not conflict with any observation.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 10:29:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 9:57:18 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
What usually happens in science is that a theory is formed based upon what we observe, the circumstances are found that were previously unobserved and the theory is found to be limited. for example, we observe that no matter how fast an object is moving, it always can be moved faster. It turns out, however, that the speed of light is an upper limit. That doesn't contradict what we observed.

We observe that something cannot be created from nothing. But the new theory is that new energy, vacuum energy, is created at the edge of the expanding universe. it is created from truly nothing -- not from a vacuum or a quantum field, but from non-existence. Vacuum energy is not proved, but scientists accept the possibility that it might be true, because it does not contradict any observation. It explains the acceleratig rate of the expansion of the universe.

Random events like quantum fluctuation appear to be uncaused. One theory is that they have a cause, but the case in in higher dimensions that we cannot observe. Science accepts the possibility that they are uncaused, because that does not conflict with any observation.

Interesting. Doesn't that contradict the notion that the universe is stretching as it expands and will eventually colapse on itself causing another black-hole? Just curious.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 10:34:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 9:57:18 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
What usually happens in science is that a theory is formed based upon what we observe, the circumstances are found that were previously unobserved and the theory is found to be limited. for example, we observe that no matter how fast an object is moving, it always can be moved faster. It turns out, however, that the speed of light is an upper limit. That doesn't contradict what we observed.

I was actually watching a Krauss lecture a few days back and he talked about that as the universe keeps expanding, galaxies would be moving away from us at greater than the speed of light.

We observe that something cannot be created from nothing. But the new theory is that new energy, vacuum energy, is created at the edge of the expanding universe. it is created from truly nothing -- not from a vacuum or a quantum field, but from non-existence. Vacuum energy is not proved, but scientists accept the possibility that it might be true, because it does not contradict any observation. It explains the acceleratig rate of the expansion of the universe.

My point is that something we observe can never be translated to universality unless we observe everything.

Random events like quantum fluctuation appear to be uncaused. One theory is that they have a cause, but the case in in higher dimensions that we cannot observe. Science accepts the possibility that they are uncaused, because that does not conflict with any observation.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 11:25:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/5/2012 11:41:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
The short answer is no simply because there is no way that we can make universal inferences based on only what we see. What we see if only a small portion of what can be seen and is in no way a complete random sampling of everything that there is.

Hume proposed an interesting argument that:

1. We see everything always have a cause.

2. We therefore expect everything to always have a cause.

3. We named these principles "universal" because all of our experiences prove it.

However, our experience are in no way representative of universality. Therefore, nothing that we infer about this world can logically be applied to places which we haven't observed (Big Bang).

Thoughts?

Well, actually, if you take Hume up on his challenge, you're sacrificing quite a bit more than you think. He applies this to all causal acts, from hitting a pool ball to a supernova.

Causation is the "glue" of imagination, according to Hume.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2012 11:54:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/8/2012 11:25:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/5/2012 11:41:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
The short answer is no simply because there is no way that we can make universal inferences based on only what we see. What we see if only a small portion of what can be seen and is in no way a complete random sampling of everything that there is.

Hume proposed an interesting argument that:

1. We see everything always have a cause.

2. We therefore expect everything to always have a cause.

3. We named these principles "universal" because all of our experiences prove it.

However, our experience are in no way representative of universality. Therefore, nothing that we infer about this world can logically be applied to places which we haven't observed (Big Bang).

Thoughts?

Well, actually, if you take Hume up on his challenge, you're sacrificing quite a bit more than you think. He applies this to all causal acts, from hitting a pool ball to a supernova.

Causation is the "glue" of imagination, according to Hume.

Exactly. He asserted we see the ball move as the foot makes contact and assume this sequent of events is causality, I believe, and that it is a unfounded assumption. I've never understood how he could justify that with physics. He seemed somewhat skeptical of observation for an empiricist.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)