Just throwing this out there: all the examples of intuition verse reality were examples of observation and reason disproven by advanced observation, whereas the idea that everything has a beginning has a cause is an example of observation and reason disproven by...? can someone fill in the blank for me?
@subRegCoder That's the whole point, reason and intuition have been proven completely wrong in the past so why should we believe in it in this instance. When working on the scale of the very large (cosmological) or very small (sub-atomic) our intuition is more often than not wrong, so we need proof or evidence otherwise any statement we make is essentially meaningless. Our intuition didn't evolve to understand this kind of stuff and is therefore effectively useless in these situations.
@leejs Now hang on, there is a loaded assumption in what you said, you said, you said that reason and intuition have been disproven in the past, thus this case of reason and intuition is untrustworthy, but really, the conclusion there does not follow unless ALL reason and intuition in the past have been disproven, otherwise you must give evidence to show that the reason in this case is faulty or otherwise invalid.
@subRegCoder Reason and intuition has been proven wrong in the past (ie geocentrism). Why then should we trust intuition on other larger cosmological questions without any evidence to support the assertions that are made? Without evidence the Kalam Cosmological Argument is as meaningless as geocentrism was 1000 years ago. It's a fun argument, nothing more.
@leejs There is a disconnect between us, and I think I know what it is: you have this preconcieved idea that reason is not, in fact, any sort of evidence, equating it to intuition. The thing is, the reason, as used in the cosmological argument, is logic, as opposed to some sort of "gut feeling". The first premise actually has its own seperate argument, going something like this: P1-All events have a cause P2- The beggining of anything is an event C- The beggining of anything has a cause
@subRegCoder Basically, what MrMk1G said. Since we have never observed a universe-creating event and thus have no evidence as to what exactly it entails, our reasoning about such an event requiring a cause is effectively meaningless at this point. Just a fun argument. There's also the issue of the uncaused cause and to paraphrase Carl Sagan, why not skip the extra step of an uncaused god creating the universe and just say the universe is uncaused?
@leejs All events we have ever seen have been caused, we have no reason to think that the beginning of the universe is any different. Until we can prove that a matter-creating event would be any different from any other event in this, we must go off what we know of the nature of events and say that such an event would be caused.
@subRegCoder I understand that all events we have witnessed have had a cause. What I'm saying is that we have never witnessed any event even remotely similar to the big bang an event that is so extraordinary that we have no frame of reference to work with. Without any sort of evidence I don't think we can say that it requires a cause like all the mundane events we have witnessed. Until such evidence is presented, both caused and uncaused theories are equally valuable/valueless.
@leejs I see your contrast between these events we see, and such an event as the beginning of the universe, but the thing is, an event is still an event no matter how unique. And I say unique intentionally, to communicate that no matter how different an event is from any other event, it is still an event that holds to the basic fundamentals of what an event is.
1. 'Everything begining has a cause' has never been observed in the sense of 'the begining of space/time/matter/energy'. All 'beginings' we have observed are re-arrangements of matter/energy within space/time. So it isn't an example of 'observation'
2. We know so little about universe-creation-events & the environment they occur in that any 'reasoning' is highly speculative
3. Virtual particles have cause-less beginings (advanced obs.)
@MrMk1G First, I appreciate your respectful and logical approach to this. Indeed, these are the three biggest objections to the premise, but there are responses. The first, and strongest objection, takes a look at form v. existence, indeed we do not see things beginning to exist, but we do see events, and as a beginning is an event, and an event is caused, so beginnings are caused.
I always learn more from respectful conversations - wish I could have them more often :)
1. Your 'events' argument suffers the same flaw. It tries to hide/equivocate the difference between (caused) events we have observed (rearrangement of matter/energy) and (?) events which we have never observed (creation of matter/energy ex nihilo). IMO, you are using induction to go from the first type of 'event' to the second, and this needs to be justified.
@MrMk1G I see your reasoning, but why would we have any reason to think that any given event is different from any other event, observed or unobserved? As all events we have seen have had certain static qualities, we cannot say that any events would have different qualities, unless this difference is first proved.
@MrMk1G You are correct in saying that we cannot merely assume that all events are the same, but we don't.
We instead look around and see that all events we observe have causality, thus it follows:
P1- All events we have ever seen have had a cause.
P2- No event has aver been witnessed without a cause.
(VC) C- All events have causes.
Then we know that all events have causes with virtual certainty. This is not absolute, but on the same level of certainty as we have on the existence of an arm
@MrMk1G Everything has an observable nature, all qualities, all objects, everything. These natures have certain attributes that are carried neccesarily by objects of its nature, even if the object as a whole is only virtually certain.
Using this, we can take two different things, abstract what we know about their natures, and use this nature to make statements about the object. With natures, we can know that something is similar in an aspect.
@MrMk1G In other words to state dissimilarity in a quality of nature, one must see dissimilarity. To state similarity in a quality of nature, one only needs know of the nature.
All this to say that we don't know how different any event is from the beginning, but we do know how similar it is based on observable qualities in the nature of events
@MrMk1G Also, I note your differentiation between the effects on matter, and to this I say an event's static qualities are irrelevant to its effects on matter, rather qualities pertaining to its instantation produce the effects.
OK - but you have to demonstrate that 'being caused' is a 'static quality' of ALL events, and is not a quality limited to particular types of events. You can't simply assert that.
So: how do we know that events are caused?
If it's through a priori reasoning, then you may be able to demonstrate it applies to ALL types of events. Home and dry.
If it's through observation & intuition, then you can't, and the KCA falls.
@MrMk1G I would say that we have seen nothing to contradict the static quality of causality of events. I would also say that we can't simply say that since inductive logic is used, the argument fails. If we were to say something of this sense, then we could not even prove the existence of the universe, not without holding a double standard.
@subRegCoder But we haven't 'proved' the existence of the universe.
Most people take it as axiomatic. A base assumption, which is useful to make, and of no apparent benefit not to make. Same with your arm. No proof, but questioning its existence (usually) just doesn't get you anywhere.
The history of induction is littered with 'poor' uses of induction and intuition resulting in all sorts of wrong things being believed. The trick is to keep axioms to a minimum.
@MrMk1G Saying the existence of the universe is simply given beggs the question: why take some things as base assumptions but leave other things known to the same degree to non-acceptance?
Certainly it gets us nowhere to deny the universe, but is truth based on where it gets us? Is everything that is useful true? What is truth and where do we draw the line on base acceptance and non-acceptance?
@MrMk1G The second objection simply questions the nature of reasoning, and would be valid if the reasoning in this situation was not based on logic. Since the reasoning is based on logic, and logic is universal (self-evident, non-falsifiable in any hypothetical circumstances), it follows that the reasoning does apply.
If your logic / reasoning is 'a priori', then no you don't.
If your logic / reasoning is 'a posteriori', then yes you do.
So - is the first premise of the KCA (and your pre-arguements, such as "all events have a cause") based on our observations/experience of the universe, or intuition?
Or is there an 'a priori' justification for this statement?
@MrMk1G The first premise is based on observations/experience of the universe, yes, but the inductive logic from these observations that is used to say that all events have a cause is, I think, strong enough to assert that this is known with virtual certainty, following that for it to not be so is a virtual impossibility. Granted, this is not absolute certainty, but then I do not even know that my hand is connected to my shoulder with such absolute certainty.
@MrMk1G The third objection, and perhaps the most interesting one, addresses what may be uncaused events that we see. For this, one must see that lack of evidence is not evidence, as lack of evidence for a cause is not evidence against a cause.
@MrMk1G I see your reasoning and indeed it invalidates what I have previously stated as an objection to your third point. I will not try to sit here and act like I know much at all about quantum theory, but I will do my best to continue addressing this point.
From what I have seen, virtual pair particles arise from the quantum field as a result of energy fluctuations in the field, granting them a cause, or at least this is a theory, just as the lack of cause is a theory.
I am merely a layman when it comes to Physics too. Wikipedia, anyone? ;)
AFAIK, QFT describes the VP's as energy fluctuations in a field, a flip-side of wave-particle duality. They aren't the 'cause' of VP's - they ARE VP's. Put it another way - those 'energy fluctuations in the field' have an uncaused begining.
But I am open to correction :)
Other examples of 'uncaused effects' from QT are radioactive decay & quantum tunnelling.
@MrMk1G Haha, wikipedia has saved my skin so many times, its nice to know that for once that I'm not the only person who doesn't truly understand quantum physics.
I too am open to correction on any of the statements I make about virtual particles.
To respond to your objection then, from what I have seen these fluctuations occur in the case of quantum tunneling (though I could not discern if this was exclusive). Quantum tunneling then occurs as a result of the particle-wave duality of matter.
@MrMk1G If these events can be predicted, then doesn't that mean they are influenced by certain conditions?
Also, to the last statement on the relevance to the beginning: while I do not dispute the relevance of this topic, I would point out that virtual particles come from electrons and other real particles, so there must be real particles before there are virtual particles.
@subRegCoder I hope I'm not picking up the wrong things from your post but virtual particles occur where there are no particles and are not reliant on there being real particles on hand. They then cease existing in a short enough time space not to disturb the energy balance.
@MrMk1G With these two valid theories, we cannot assume that one or the other is true, or at least not to the extent that we could use it to argue the non-causality of the beginning of the universe. If we were to do so, we would be arguing against the KCA's first premise with assumption.
For the KCA to be a valid argument, WLC must PROVE that the premises are true.
To invalidate it - I don't have to prove that a premise is false, I simply have to demonstrate that it hasn't been proven true.
Even if QFT refutes 'non-causality' (and I don't think it does) and we therefore have two competing theories (I think they are interpretations of one theory), that is sufficient to render the KCA invalid. I.e. we don't KNOW that its premises are true.
@linuxisbetter0 No. Our intuitive senses evolved to understand our level of existence, not to provide a framework for understanding the very large (ie cosmological scale) or the very small (ie sub-atomic scale). For these areas our intuition is meaningless. One reason quantum theory is so difficult to understand is that it works against our intuitive notions of how things should work.
Consider the set of “all items that began to exist.” This set must be contained within the set of “all items that exist” - the universe.
If the set of “all items that began to exist.” is equal to the set of “all items that exist” that makes the argument circular.
Therefore, there must be one or more items within the set of “all items that exist” (the universe) that are not contained within the set of “all items that began to exist.” But that would contradict the second premise.
@tmargette This vid is important specifically because asses speak and go on to infect and maim other minds. The variety of intuition that informs mathematics (ie von Neumann) is a very different beast from the intuition that shields a "believing" or unquestioning mind. They are not only unrelated, but at war. And the former requires defending. Desperately.
sisyphusredeemed: My friend, and I use the term sincerely and hopefully based on this vid, that was flat out beautiful. I knew the components, was struggling w/ the bullshit, and my reason was straining in this direction... but, for me, this was a symphony in response. I can't thank you enough. Without any call to any "great power" my small, human self blesses you. Respect and thanks, without reservation.
I would argue this definition of intuition. To me intuition has nothing to to with our mind. All argument against intuition here is in relation to the thinking mind or intellect. Most people believe this is all we have to know truth. If the mind is so powerful why is the human race so screwed up. You would THINK we should have evolved to a more loving, harmonious, joyful race by now. But who cares, the next iPhone will be awesome.
I was tired of vlogging and probably the main reason for it was that people like you aren't vlogging... but apparently this isn't the case and I am so glad I found you, cause there are certain ridiculous concerns I've had and such a difficulty putting them to words. And you manage to put them into 10-20 minute videos. Obviously I'm not much of a reader, but I guess that is going to change, now that I've found a pretty good source of enlightenment.
Thank you for putting putting my thoughts into such succinct words. "You read my mind." ;) Traveling down such a road so counter to the predominant Machiavellian precepts of our western socio-psychology, I've had to wonder at my own sanity from time to time. I'm so glad I stumbled upon you. Thanks for all the great work!
I've only see three of your videos, but I have to say after years of 'self discovery' I have just started to come to the idea that the real truth of it all is that I am largely wrong. Knowing and understanding that not as a bad thing. Rather seeing that honest self assessment as a serious advantage. Allowing myself to be wrong allows me to be more mentally flexible. It also allows much better relationships with others, through accepting my own faults I also allow others theres as well.
The point simply is that the conditions "before" the Big Bang where time and matter were nonexistent (realizing that terms like "before” and “after" have no meaning in a timeless void) are so unique and different that applying rules of causation makes no sense, and that is ultimately why William Lane Craig's argument fails. His argument erroneously takes concepts, which are indeed true within a certain context, and misappropriates them to a context they don't belong.
Premise 1: Explanations that are MORE MYSTERIOUS than the event they are trying to explain are not explanations, but bullshit masquerading as an explanation.
Premise 2: Theism defines God as the ULTIMATE MYSTERY, which cannot be understood
Conclusion: Therefore, Craig and his Kalam Cosmological argument are bullshit.
Positing a God, who is timeless/immaterial (how is that possible?) is no better than saying a ghost is the reason my car starts, because I’m ignorant about how cars work.
Great video. But to be fair, you misrepresented the Kalam argument. It only has 2 premises and a conclusion. The 4th line you added is an entirely different argument with its own logical reasoning behind it that Craig then joins with the Kalam argument. But the way you put it makes it sound as though Craig made that leap in logic himself. I am atheist, but I am fair as well.
@KDN888 [Craig made that leap in logic himself] Although Craig elaborate further his arguments about why an immaterial mind must be the cause, he hardly press this point. Kalam is, in fact, a red herring used to create a distraction from the real rubbish: his magical mind that works without a brain and can think outside time, which exposes the circular nature of his reasoning. He assumes as true the very thing he is trying to prove.
How can 2 parallel lines cross? The definition of parallel is that they share a plane but don't cross. Surely that means if they cross, then they're not parallel?
How are our logical intuitions self-contradictory?
@civisromae [How can 2 parallel lines cross?] The space-time has a curvature, it bends in the presence of mass. Euclidian axioms are based on the idea of perfect planes, but no such thing exist in nature. Because of this, two lines that are initially parallel in space can cross somewhere, the sum of the internal angles of an triangle is not really 180º, the shortest path between two points is a curve, and so on. Euclidian geometry is valid nowhere except in our minds.
It's cheating a bit, because for the lines to cross, you have to bend the 2-dimensional plain. But if you bend it, is it really 2-dimensional? Longitude and latitude lines are a good example. If the earth were flat, these lines could be parallel forever. But since this apparant flatness is actually a sphere, the lines that seem parallel actually meet together at the sphere's two axes.
@civisromae That is the definition in euclidean geometry so it's true within that context of course. People used to assume that the laws of the universe followed euclidean geometry, since it is so intuitive. Thanks to relativity (and as confirmed by experiments) we now know the universe is non-euclidean (space-time is curved) and two parallel lines can cross. So euclidean geometry isn't "real", despite being intuitive.
@civisromae@civisromae 2 parallel lines can converge on a curved geometrical surface, such as in non euclidian geometries. A better definition of parallel lines that fits in all geometries is that of two lines which are both perpedicular, in the same plane, to a third line, a a point. In a Euclidian space, these lines would never intersect, that is a fact,but not the definition of parallel. Even in our 4 dimensional world parallel lines draw closer as they pass massive objects
Whenever I hear about quantum physics I feel more then a foggy understanding and remembering some factoid is probably largely beyond me. But also that some things about it may indeed be 'queerer then we can suppose' as in 'beyond HUMANITY'
But I wonder, would they be beyond minds better then we have? What if we merged our mind with supercomputers? Would that boost help at all? Computers are great at doing mathematics, they don't forget things.
Or might it be entirely understandable no matter?
I guess what I mean to say is... Lets say quantum mechanics core principles are entirely incomprehensible to human minds. That we can work with it, but never UNDERSTAND it. Does that mean it's by it's nature non-understandable, or that this is merely a limit of the human mind, that a greater mind, such as a hypothetical future cyborg mind, could overcome?
Or is it that we simply never can FIND OUT? Then again, I doubt that. Sometimes it just requires new instruments.
The reason I ask is because I feel the human mind, even the best ones, are limited things. Ponderous imperfect brains of meat and chemistry. And that maybe with improved brains, the incomprehensible might be more comprehensible at the very least.
After all computers can already crunch numbers better then even the most gifted savants. So there are things conceivable that human minds cannot do, but that a better mind could do.
@TheSkunkCat I don't think we should take Halden's claim too seriously. It's a reminded to be humble, to not think we've got it all figured out. If we really took his claim to heart, we'd just give up on science (or at least pure research) because what's the point, we'll never 'get it.'
Completely excellent video! Thumb'd 'n fav'd and thoroughly enjoyed. Nail hit squarely on head, and all that. Sub'd too (I don't know how I took so long to find your channel.)
This video was amazing until you injected religion into it. The scientific principles mentioned are true, but they do not relate to a God. Why would you water down such and amazing breakthrough with such trivial theories on God and a guy who obviously speaks out of his ass?
Intuition, thought processes are amazing. Mathematics do not understand it, but like myself, I have the ability to see more than others regarding mental projections. It is not a GOD. Listen. Stop talking. Listen.
I don't see how causality works without time.. Until someone shows me how that works, I don't even see the need to refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument at all.. But I liked your video :)
This argument proves that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true God. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Yahweh is Jesus, Jesus began to exist to Yahweh began to exist. So Yahweh has a cause and we all know that he was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Very good food for thought. This is like biology. You may have one idea for something, but often unexpected things happen when you go out and test your idea.
Fantastic video. Around minute 10 I was thinking about my own view on intuition ("good starting point for inquiry, not an endpoint), which you expressed yourself by min. 13. Couldn't agree more.
I don't understand why people still "ooh" and "aah" at the incompleteness theorem. Not only does it follow trivially from the existence of the computer in front of you right now, but the basic form can be seen from contemporaries of Plato. Frankly, I just think Russel and Whitehead were idiots.
I doubt I'm the only one who hates and want to wipe that honey-mouthed smile of Craig's face. It wouldn't surprise me if he spends at least half an hour each morning, adoring his smiley face through the bathroom mirror.
OMG, you just said everything I always wanted to say about this subject, said it better than I could ever could and made the best summery of the book that should be (and maybe has been) written about this subject anyone would ever could. Thanks for making me able to pass on thinking about something completely different. :)
Actually, events can occur at the same time. It's just that the *perception" of that event happens at different times in different frames of reference.
Actually, the proof is that Maths can either be consistent, or complete, but not both. Also, when it comes to a solid foundation of Maths, see Bourbaki.
@CrispyGreyMatter If there is no absolute space-time, that no one inertial reference frame is preferential to any other than I don't believe it makes sense to assert that events do occur at the same time and it is just our perceptions of it that differ. If not all inertial reference frames agree if two events occur simultaneously and neither have claim to being the absolute frame than no simultaneity occurs.
I'm not convinced the argument requires an "absolute reliance on intuition" anymore than arguments do generally. However, I do not find the negation of Craig's premises to be very counterintuitive. I can imagine them to be false without difficulty. That is quite unlike imagining that parallel lines intersect or that 2+2=3. In other words his argument is insufficiently justified via intuition.
Godel did not prove that mathematics by necessity is incomplete. He proved that finite formal systems are incomplete. He used this to argue that computers can never know as much about math as human beings, and therefore we are not computers.
Craig has stated that he believes that Jesus performed exorcisms.
His use of the cosmological argument is transparently disingenuous. He co-opts quotes from physicists, and tips his cap to science, but he's clearly not bound by science.
Oooh, jeeez, I really could'e used this level of reasoning the other day, because I was an atheist, but then the Mormons knocked on my door, you see.... What was I to do?
I am a Theist but the kalam argument always baffled me as i can fallow it up to point 3 then 4 comes and leaps wildly saying things are that are not obvious and just a lazy shoehorning in of whatever premise you want to prove. They are only obvious to someone who considers no other possibility.
@FattyMcFox Great video. But to be fair, he misrepresented the Kalam argument. It only has 2 premises and a conclusion. The 4th line he added is an entirely different argument with its own logical reasoning behind it that Craig then joins with the Kalam argument to argue for God's existence. But the way this vid put it makes it sound as though Craig made that leap in logic within the Kalam argument, which is not true. I am atheist, but I am fair as well.
Great video. And I would suspect that is the real lesson of Schrodinger's cat. The true state of affairs is determined by observation not by intuition.
OK I am not going to read +500 comments, instead I'll say you probably won't find a physicist confirming that particles really travel back in time, if you wanna look into that again.
@Baerchenization Isn't that the current understanding of neutrinos and tachyons? I'm not a physicist, so I very well could be wrong, but that's what I thought the state of play was.
@SisyphusRedeemed While the OPERA result is taken seriously, most physicists don't seem to think it will turn out to be correct. As far as 'tachyons' go, such particles have never been observed, and if my understanding of quantum field theory is correct, they won't be.
@SisyphusRedeemed As far as particles going back in time---it turns out that you can (mathematically) transform matter into anti-matter by reversing the direction of time (in the theory), so Feynman poetically interpreted this as meaning anti-particles are particles going backwards in time. I think that's where you might have heard of particles going backwards in time, and I don't think anyone takes this any more seriously than they take Dirac's sea of holes.
Well, I am a curious party myself, only. But I would say that of course the current wisdom is that you (or anything) cannot go back in time. A quick googling "particles travel back in time" seems to reveal that this is rather the laymen getting it the wrong way, e.g. "physicsforums" link
If you mean the recent CERN finding re. neutrinos, that is not a scientific fact, that is merely submitted to scrutiny (and most likey wrong)
@SisyphusRedeemed tachyons are still hypothetical, and it's still on the verge of being confirmed that neutrinos can go faster than light (and there are other explanations on offer than that meaning they go backwards in time)
@SisyphusRedeemed Neutrinos still haven't been proven to travel faster than light, so its unsure whether they travel back in time. Tachyons have been hypothesized to travel faster than light, but they've never been observed, they're still a hypothesis. If they do exist, however, then they would travel backwards in time.
@SisyphusRedeemed no, it isn't. Tachyons are not proven to exist, and neutrinos are not (proven to be) moving backwards in time. The backwards-in-time motion is usually used as a tool in QED for antiparticles.
@SisyphusRedeemed I'm in physics, and It is in play, though most people are thinking that the experiments had a slight error in them. (the excess of c was only very slight)
It is still up in the air enough though that no one wants to say for sure though.
@SisyphusRedeemed I don't know about neutrinos traveling backwards in time but tachyons are theoretical particles which only travel backwards in time and faster than light, it would take infinite energy to slow them down to lightspeed. Their existence has yet to be established but it's predicted by modern Physics as was Black Holes a hundred years ago.
@Baerchenization I've heard other day that it was hypothesised by scientists that what we perceive as antiparticles can in fact be normal particles traveling back in time, for example positon can be electron traveling back in time, and when those particles "collide" (positon and electron), that is in fact a looping of electron( electron going forward and then backward in time), thats why they "annihilate" when "colliding". But thats just a hypothesis i think.
I really enjoyed this thought provoking video. Thank you.
I was just wondering if the emission of (say) a beta particle from a nucleus would count as an empirical disproof of premise 1? I understand it to be a spontaneous and random event which cannot be explained by any "hidden clockwork" inside the nucleus.
@GETH7 I wouldn't go so far as to say it's 'disproof', but it certainly seems to create problems for P1. Before we go as far as saying it disproves P1 we have to do a lot more careful analysis and consideration of the evidence, the theory, the measurement apparatus, etc., work which is frankly beyond my humble capacities. I'm more than content to just say it's far more complicated than Craig would have us believe.
@SisyphusRedeemed13:29 Way too loud music at the end. I was contemplating the question mark at the bottom left of the illustration there, and I really don't like quantum mechanics at all. It scares me, though I'm a naturalist.
Your outro gave me a near-heart attack. Otherwise, a splendid video with a lot of good points and many sources; I enjoyed the Daniel Dennett quote in particular!
@Pomme843 Yeah, sorry about the music. I tried to lower the volume, but for some reason my editing program decided not to comply. I don't think that's a verbatim quote from Dennett, it's more like a paraphrase of something I heard him say once, but yeah, the sentiment is great.
P1. For everything that begins to exist, there also exist a time in which it did not exist.
P2. The is no time in which the Universe did not exist.
C. Therefore the Universe did not begin to exist.
One of my main issues with Kalam is it's sloppy use of the word "begins". WLC points to similarities between what begins in our everyday world to the Universe. So I point out the ways in which they are not.
@piprod01 Hmm... I don't think I've ever seen that argument before. At first glance, I must say I rather like it. Thank you, good sir, for bringing it to my attention.
I'd like to think it's original! Have been sitting on it for a few weeks now, and have been busy with stuff. I should get some time over Christmas to explain the background a bit better and post it on a currently non-existent blog.
So far, I've just been testing the water and gauging responses.
I wonder if we can honestly say that something exists at time "0". I sort of balk at that, because I don't want to fall into the dualism of asserting the existence of nonbeing. I think it may make more sense to say that it approaches 0.
I'm just worried that that argument commits us to a certain notion of being that we may not want to commit ourselves to.
The statement "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is nonsensical even on an intuitive level. How many things have WLC seen begin existing? I sure as hell haven't. How so is this intuitively true or even plausible then?
Intuition is actually very useful and shouldn't be discounted... on a human scale.
When deal with humans and other animals or basic cause and effect physics our intuition is great. Basically it's good for anything we've evolved to deal with. Unfortunately things work a bit differently when dealing with the truly vast or miniscule. It all comes down to scale. We just don't have the capacity to intuitively know anything beyond our scale. We require other means for determining how such things work.
@Arikiel I don't say we should discard intuition (actually, at the end of the video I specifically say we shouldn't), but I do think it's very prone to error, even on the human scale. Take a look at the material on intuitive physics, for example. We seem to be hard-wired for Aristotelianism, which is certainly false, despite being on the human scale.
You know, I had this same exact arguement with DawahFilms about two weeks ago. If I'd recognized at the time just how unoriginal and unexamined his position was, I'd not have bothered.
i dont know too much about physics but heisenbergs principle states that we cannot know both the position and momentum of a particle, not the position and velocity
@BornWithoutReligion Very kind of you to say. Although I must admit that sometimes when I rewatch my own stuff I do wonder what the hell I was thinking when I wrote it. So far at least, that hasn't happened on this video.
The premise "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is still reasonable insomuch as all things that we see that begin to exist have a cause for their existence (unless virtual particles be the exception, but we still await absolute proof of this). It's especially hard to see how one would disagree with this if one is an empiricist. Thus, to just wave your hand and say "intuition has failed before" is not a successful refutation of this premise.
@AgApE010 I didn't say it refuted the premise. I said it undermined the justification for the premise. The premise may still be true, but we don't have a good reason for thinking that it is true.
@AgApE010 It cannot be either one as they are two different concepts entirely. The point is not causality if the two are the same. I am no different from god using your explanation as I have created a number of things that never before existed, though they were in a different from at one point and I did not make something from nothing (which is impossible anyway). You see, the KCA is just rhetorical BS, there is no logical underpinning.
You'd be justified in thinking it's a possibility, perhaps a strong one. And you could be reasonable in applying your experience to things unobserved. However, being possible and reasonable is not an identical notion to being true.
There are no 100% complete or absolute truths until one has 100% complete and absolute knowledge. What we arrive at currently are supported, reasoned, and tested guesses.
@AgApE010 Wait.... So we have witnessed something to "begin to exist"? I have never seen something come from nothing, thus i have never seen something "begin to exist", i have only ever witnessed something converting to another... Something becoming something else... Conservation of energy anyone? Maybe i am forgetting something due to my memory problems :/
"Begin to exist" does not necessarily equal "something from nothing." "Beginning to exist" and "something converting to another" is mere semantics. Besides, you're missing the point. The point is causality itself, not the nature of the substances of the effects.
@AgApE010 The big bang was ALL energy in the universe in a state smaller then an atom, so i think it is safe to say things might have been different then things are now. Thus human observation may not be good enough until we can calculate all possibilities during the big bang and/or before it. The beginning if it can be called that is MUCH more unknown then anything we have ever theorized, etc... So we need to know alot more then we do now to be anything close to sure :/
What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that the nature of causality was different at the Big Bang? What is the justification for this other than "things were probably different because they were different"?
@AgApE010 At this point your basically saying a god is nothing special, because we humans "create" things in the sense you mention. More specifically we take 1 thing and make something else exist with it. So we are god? I mean
Just throwing this out there: all the examples of intuition verse reality were examples of observation and reason disproven by advanced observation, whereas the idea that everything has a beginning has a cause is an example of observation and reason disproven by...? can someone fill in the blank for me?
subRegCoder 3 weeks ago
@subRegCoder That's the whole point, reason and intuition have been proven completely wrong in the past so why should we believe in it in this instance. When working on the scale of the very large (cosmological) or very small (sub-atomic) our intuition is more often than not wrong, so we need proof or evidence otherwise any statement we make is essentially meaningless. Our intuition didn't evolve to understand this kind of stuff and is therefore effectively useless in these situations.
leejs 3 weeks ago
@leejs Now hang on, there is a loaded assumption in what you said, you said, you said that reason and intuition have been disproven in the past, thus this case of reason and intuition is untrustworthy, but really, the conclusion there does not follow unless ALL reason and intuition in the past have been disproven, otherwise you must give evidence to show that the reason in this case is faulty or otherwise invalid.
subRegCoder 3 weeks ago
@subRegCoder Reason and intuition has been proven wrong in the past (ie geocentrism). Why then should we trust intuition on other larger cosmological questions without any evidence to support the assertions that are made? Without evidence the Kalam Cosmological Argument is as meaningless as geocentrism was 1000 years ago. It's a fun argument, nothing more.
leejs 3 weeks ago
@leejs There is a disconnect between us, and I think I know what it is: you have this preconcieved idea that reason is not, in fact, any sort of evidence, equating it to intuition. The thing is, the reason, as used in the cosmological argument, is logic, as opposed to some sort of "gut feeling". The first premise actually has its own seperate argument, going something like this: P1-All events have a cause P2- The beggining of anything is an event C- The beggining of anything has a cause
subRegCoder 2 weeks ago
@subRegCoder Basically, what MrMk1G said. Since we have never observed a universe-creating event and thus have no evidence as to what exactly it entails, our reasoning about such an event requiring a cause is effectively meaningless at this point. Just a fun argument. There's also the issue of the uncaused cause and to paraphrase Carl Sagan, why not skip the extra step of an uncaused god creating the universe and just say the universe is uncaused?
leejs 2 weeks ago
@leejs All events we have ever seen have been caused, we have no reason to think that the beginning of the universe is any different. Until we can prove that a matter-creating event would be any different from any other event in this, we must go off what we know of the nature of events and say that such an event would be caused.
subRegCoder 2 weeks ago
@subRegCoder I understand that all events we have witnessed have had a cause. What I'm saying is that we have never witnessed any event even remotely similar to the big bang an event that is so extraordinary that we have no frame of reference to work with. Without any sort of evidence I don't think we can say that it requires a cause like all the mundane events we have witnessed. Until such evidence is presented, both caused and uncaused theories are equally valuable/valueless.
leejs 2 weeks ago
@leejs I see your contrast between these events we see, and such an event as the beginning of the universe, but the thing is, an event is still an event no matter how unique. And I say unique intentionally, to communicate that no matter how different an event is from any other event, it is still an event that holds to the basic fundamentals of what an event is.
subRegCoder 2 weeks ago
@subReg
1. 'Everything begining has a cause' has never been observed in the sense of 'the begining of space/time/matter/energy'. All 'beginings' we have observed are re-arrangements of matter/energy within space/time. So it isn't an example of 'observation'
2. We know so little about universe-creation-events & the environment they occur in that any 'reasoning' is highly speculative
3. Virtual particles have cause-less beginings (advanced obs.)
Apologies if you covered this before
MrMk1G 2 weeks ago
@MrMk1G First, I appreciate your respectful and logical approach to this. Indeed, these are the three biggest objections to the premise, but there are responses. The first, and strongest objection, takes a look at form v. existence, indeed we do not see things beginning to exist, but we do see events, and as a beginning is an event, and an event is caused, so beginnings are caused.
subRegCoder 2 weeks ago
@subRegCoder
I always learn more from respectful conversations - wish I could have them more often :)
1. Your 'events' argument suffers the same flaw. It tries to hide/equivocate the difference between (caused) events we have observed (rearrangement of matter/energy) and (?) events which we have never observed (creation of matter/energy ex nihilo). IMO, you are using induction to go from the first type of 'event' to the second, and this needs to be justified.
MrMk1G 2 weeks ago
@MrMk1G
Correction - shouldn't have said 'ex nihilo'. We have no information as to whether the creation of the universe was 'ex nihilo' or not, AFAIK.
MrMk1G 2 weeks ago
@MrMk1G I see your reasoning, but why would we have any reason to think that any given event is different from any other event, observed or unobserved? As all events we have seen have had certain static qualities, we cannot say that any events would have different qualities, unless this difference is first proved.
subRegCoder 2 weeks ago
@subRegCoder
Why assume they are different - I can't.
But exactly the same argument applies to thinking that the two different 'events' are the same. So I can't assume they are the same either.
This is the limitiation of inductive reasoning.
Conclusion - we don't know whether 'universe-creation' events are caused or not.
Therefore we cannot assert (in premise 1 of KCA, or sub-arguments) that they are.
MrMk1G 2 weeks ago
@MrMk1G You are correct in saying that we cannot merely assume that all events are the same, but we don't.
We instead look around and see that all events we observe have causality, thus it follows:
P1- All events we have ever seen have had a cause.
P2- No event has aver been witnessed without a cause.
(VC) C- All events have causes.
Then we know that all events have causes with virtual certainty. This is not absolute, but on the same level of certainty as we have on the existence of an arm
subRegCoder 2 weeks ago
@subRegCoder Our difference seems to boil down to one point:
Are we justified to use induction to make claims about 'universe creation events' based on 'macro-scale events observed within our universe'?
So - when does induction work well / badly?
IMO, induction works well (sometimes) when the two cases in question are identical.
Induction gets less reliable as the two cases become more different.
We know so little about the 'creation event' - we don't even know how different it is!
MrMk1G 2 weeks ago
@MrMk1G Everything has an observable nature, all qualities, all objects, everything. These natures have certain attributes that are carried neccesarily by objects of its nature, even if the object as a whole is only virtually certain.
Using this, we can take two different things, abstract what we know about their natures, and use this nature to make statements about the object. With natures, we can know that something is similar in an aspect.
subRegCoder 1 week ago
@MrMk1G In other words to state dissimilarity in a quality of nature, one must see dissimilarity. To state similarity in a quality of nature, one only needs know of the nature.
All this to say that we don't know how different any event is from the beginning, but we do know how similar it is based on observable qualities in the nature of events
subRegCoder 1 week ago
@MrMk1G Also, I note your differentiation between the effects on matter, and to this I say an event's static qualities are irrelevant to its effects on matter, rather qualities pertaining to its instantation produce the effects.
subRegCoder 2 weeks ago
@subRegCoder
OK - but you have to demonstrate that 'being caused' is a 'static quality' of ALL events, and is not a quality limited to particular types of events. You can't simply assert that.
So: how do we know that events are caused?
If it's through a priori reasoning, then you may be able to demonstrate it applies to ALL types of events. Home and dry.
If it's through observation & intuition, then you can't, and the KCA falls.
MrMk1G 2 weeks ago
@MrMk1G I would say that we have seen nothing to contradict the static quality of causality of events. I would also say that we can't simply say that since inductive logic is used, the argument fails. If we were to say something of this sense, then we could not even prove the existence of the universe, not without holding a double standard.
subRegCoder 2 weeks ago
@subRegCoder But we haven't 'proved' the existence of the universe.
Most people take it as axiomatic. A base assumption, which is useful to make, and of no apparent benefit not to make. Same with your arm. No proof, but questioning its existence (usually) just doesn't get you anywhere.
The history of induction is littered with 'poor' uses of induction and intuition resulting in all sorts of wrong things being believed. The trick is to keep axioms to a minimum.
MrMk1G 2 weeks ago
@MrMk1G Saying the existence of the universe is simply given beggs the question: why take some things as base assumptions but leave other things known to the same degree to non-acceptance?
Certainly it gets us nowhere to deny the universe, but is truth based on where it gets us? Is everything that is useful true? What is truth and where do we draw the line on base acceptance and non-acceptance?
subRegCoder 1 week ago
@MrMk1G The second objection simply questions the nature of reasoning, and would be valid if the reasoning in this situation was not based on logic. Since the reasoning is based on logic, and logic is universal (self-evident, non-falsifiable in any hypothetical circumstances), it follows that the reasoning does apply.
subRegCoder 2 weeks ago
@subRegCoder
Erm - not quite. (2) questions the premises that any such reasoning is based on.
I am arguing that we know pretty much nothing about the environment & processes which give rise to universe-creation events.
And therefore - that we have no data (or only 'highly speculative' premises) to reason from.
MrMk1G 2 weeks ago
@MrMk1G I agree that we have no observations on the cause of the universe, but do we need such data to perform logic on the nature of causality?
subRegCoder 2 weeks ago
@subRegCoder
It depends:
If your logic / reasoning is 'a priori', then no you don't.
If your logic / reasoning is 'a posteriori', then yes you do.
So - is the first premise of the KCA (and your pre-arguements, such as "all events have a cause") based on our observations/experience of the universe, or intuition?
Or is there an 'a priori' justification for this statement?
MrMk1G 2 weeks ago
@MrMk1G The first premise is based on observations/experience of the universe, yes, but the inductive logic from these observations that is used to say that all events have a cause is, I think, strong enough to assert that this is known with virtual certainty, following that for it to not be so is a virtual impossibility. Granted, this is not absolute certainty, but then I do not even know that my hand is connected to my shoulder with such absolute certainty.
subRegCoder 2 weeks ago
@MrMk1G The third objection, and perhaps the most interesting one, addresses what may be uncaused events that we see. For this, one must see that lack of evidence is not evidence, as lack of evidence for a cause is not evidence against a cause.
subRegCoder 2 weeks ago
@subRegCoder
The claim that virtual particles (VPs) pop into existence uncaused arises from a scientific theory, and not from a 'lack of evidence' of a cause.
It arises from the randomness evident at very small scales, and described by quantum theory. It has been backed up with observation.
Granted - a scientific theory is 'merely' our best current explanation of observations - not conclusive proof.
But you can't dismiss VP's so easily. You have to 'break' quantum theory. ;)
MrMk1G 2 weeks ago
@MrMk1G I see your reasoning and indeed it invalidates what I have previously stated as an objection to your third point. I will not try to sit here and act like I know much at all about quantum theory, but I will do my best to continue addressing this point.
From what I have seen, virtual pair particles arise from the quantum field as a result of energy fluctuations in the field, granting them a cause, or at least this is a theory, just as the lack of cause is a theory.
subRegCoder 2 weeks ago
@subRegCoder
I am merely a layman when it comes to Physics too. Wikipedia, anyone? ;)
AFAIK, QFT describes the VP's as energy fluctuations in a field, a flip-side of wave-particle duality. They aren't the 'cause' of VP's - they ARE VP's. Put it another way - those 'energy fluctuations in the field' have an uncaused begining.
But I am open to correction :)
Other examples of 'uncaused effects' from QT are radioactive decay & quantum tunnelling.
MrMk1G 2 weeks ago
@MrMk1G Haha, wikipedia has saved my skin so many times, its nice to know that for once that I'm not the only person who doesn't truly understand quantum physics.
I too am open to correction on any of the statements I make about virtual particles.
To respond to your objection then, from what I have seen these fluctuations occur in the case of quantum tunneling (though I could not discern if this was exclusive). Quantum tunneling then occurs as a result of the particle-wave duality of matter.
subRegCoder 2 weeks ago
@subRegCoder Perhaps I am missing the point by getting too detailed.
According to quantum theory, at very small scales, many events are stochastic, rather than deterministic. This has been experimentally verified.
I.e. things happen randomly, rather than are triggered by a specific 'cause'.
They can only be predicted statistically, but not based on the inputs (Newtonian style).
This is relevant because at the beginning, our universe existed on that same v. small scale.
MrMk1G 2 weeks ago
@MrMk1G If these events can be predicted, then doesn't that mean they are influenced by certain conditions?
Also, to the last statement on the relevance to the beginning: while I do not dispute the relevance of this topic, I would point out that virtual particles come from electrons and other real particles, so there must be real particles before there are virtual particles.
subRegCoder 1 week ago
@subRegCoder I hope I'm not picking up the wrong things from your post but virtual particles occur where there are no particles and are not reliant on there being real particles on hand. They then cease existing in a short enough time space not to disturb the energy balance.
x42brown 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
@MrMk1G With these two valid theories, we cannot assume that one or the other is true, or at least not to the extent that we could use it to argue the non-causality of the beginning of the universe. If we were to do so, we would be arguing against the KCA's first premise with assumption.
subRegCoder 2 weeks ago
@subRegCoder
For the KCA to be a valid argument, WLC must PROVE that the premises are true.
To invalidate it - I don't have to prove that a premise is false, I simply have to demonstrate that it hasn't been proven true.
Even if QFT refutes 'non-causality' (and I don't think it does) and we therefore have two competing theories (I think they are interpretations of one theory), that is sufficient to render the KCA invalid. I.e. we don't KNOW that its premises are true.
MrMk1G 2 weeks ago
You don't need any science to refute WLC's "arguments". Every single one of them is irrelevant in the face of the two word statement "PROVE IT".
lewisner 3 weeks ago
LOL as seen on marijuana com
morpheuskibbe 4 weeks ago
Shouldn't we trust our intuitions until contrary reasoning or evidence?
linuxisbetter0 1 month ago
@linuxisbetter0 No. Our intuitive senses evolved to understand our level of existence, not to provide a framework for understanding the very large (ie cosmological scale) or the very small (ie sub-atomic scale). For these areas our intuition is meaningless. One reason quantum theory is so difficult to understand is that it works against our intuitive notions of how things should work.
leejs 3 weeks ago
My main problem with Kalam is it obfuscates and equivocates.. let's clarify it!
1) Every state of matter which is preceded by another state of matter is caused by the previous state.
2) The universe contains many states of matter, going back to the first state of matter, a few billion years ago.
2B) The first state of matter, BY DEFINITION, was not preceded by or caused by any previous states.
3) The universe was not caused.
4) Anything described as "causing the universe" is therefore a fiction.
Flyborg 1 month ago
Consider the set of “all items that began to exist.” This set must be contained within the set of “all items that exist” - the universe.
If the set of “all items that began to exist.” is equal to the set of “all items that exist” that makes the argument circular.
Therefore, there must be one or more items within the set of “all items that exist” (the universe) that are not contained within the set of “all items that began to exist.” But that would contradict the second premise.
apeek7 1 month ago
Great video! :-)
TheChamseyCampaign 1 month ago
@tmargette This vid is important specifically because asses speak and go on to infect and maim other minds. The variety of intuition that informs mathematics (ie von Neumann) is a very different beast from the intuition that shields a "believing" or unquestioning mind. They are not only unrelated, but at war. And the former requires defending. Desperately.
KnowKnot 2 months ago
sisyphusredeemed: My friend, and I use the term sincerely and hopefully based on this vid, that was flat out beautiful. I knew the components, was struggling w/ the bullshit, and my reason was straining in this direction... but, for me, this was a symphony in response. I can't thank you enough. Without any call to any "great power" my small, human self blesses you. Respect and thanks, without reservation.
KnowKnot 2 months ago
kewlio *subscribing*
managarm1349 2 months ago
It's Turtles all the way down - it's obvious.
MiserablerHurensohn 2 months ago
@MiserablerHurensohn yep, i fucking loved that image. angry turtles they was!
synchronium24 2 months ago
I would argue this definition of intuition. To me intuition has nothing to to with our mind. All argument against intuition here is in relation to the thinking mind or intellect. Most people believe this is all we have to know truth. If the mind is so powerful why is the human race so screwed up. You would THINK we should have evolved to a more loving, harmonious, joyful race by now. But who cares, the next iPhone will be awesome.
shimwah 2 months ago
Delicious!! thanks for the meal!
Th0usandMaster 2 months ago
As seen on: marijuana[dot]com
lololol
MrShyguy0 2 months ago
There is a reason why intelligent people know this as the "Calamitous Cosmogical Non-Argument".
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I was tired of vlogging and probably the main reason for it was that people like you aren't vlogging... but apparently this isn't the case and I am so glad I found you, cause there are certain ridiculous concerns I've had and such a difficulty putting them to words. And you manage to put them into 10-20 minute videos. Obviously I'm not much of a reader, but I guess that is going to change, now that I've found a pretty good source of enlightenment.
Keep up the great work!
snoookie456 2 months ago
Comment removed
snoookie456 2 months ago
Thank you for putting putting my thoughts into such succinct words. "You read my mind." ;) Traveling down such a road so counter to the predominant Machiavellian precepts of our western socio-psychology, I've had to wonder at my own sanity from time to time. I'm so glad I stumbled upon you. Thanks for all the great work!
boxingbone 2 months ago
I've only see three of your videos, but I have to say after years of 'self discovery' I have just started to come to the idea that the real truth of it all is that I am largely wrong. Knowing and understanding that not as a bad thing. Rather seeing that honest self assessment as a serious advantage. Allowing myself to be wrong allows me to be more mentally flexible. It also allows much better relationships with others, through accepting my own faults I also allow others theres as well.
boxingbone 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The point simply is that the conditions "before" the Big Bang where time and matter were nonexistent (realizing that terms like "before” and “after" have no meaning in a timeless void) are so unique and different that applying rules of causation makes no sense, and that is ultimately why William Lane Craig's argument fails. His argument erroneously takes concepts, which are indeed true within a certain context, and misappropriates them to a context they don't belong.
alphacause 2 months ago
Premise 1: Explanations that are MORE MYSTERIOUS than the event they are trying to explain are not explanations, but bullshit masquerading as an explanation.
Premise 2: Theism defines God as the ULTIMATE MYSTERY, which cannot be understood
Conclusion: Therefore, Craig and his Kalam Cosmological argument are bullshit.
Positing a God, who is timeless/immaterial (how is that possible?) is no better than saying a ghost is the reason my car starts, because I’m ignorant about how cars work.
alphacause 2 months ago
Great video. But to be fair, you misrepresented the Kalam argument. It only has 2 premises and a conclusion. The 4th line you added is an entirely different argument with its own logical reasoning behind it that Craig then joins with the Kalam argument. But the way you put it makes it sound as though Craig made that leap in logic himself. I am atheist, but I am fair as well.
KDN888 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KDN888 [Craig made that leap in logic himself] Although Craig elaborate further his arguments about why an immaterial mind must be the cause, he hardly press this point. Kalam is, in fact, a red herring used to create a distraction from the real rubbish: his magical mind that works without a brain and can think outside time, which exposes the circular nature of his reasoning. He assumes as true the very thing he is trying to prove.
lfzadra 2 months ago
@KDN888 He mentioned that he was summarizing Craig's version.
hheintze1 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
This one give me a headache.
How can 2 parallel lines cross? The definition of parallel is that they share a plane but don't cross. Surely that means if they cross, then they're not parallel?
How are our logical intuitions self-contradictory?
I'm not arguing with you, just asking.
civisromae 2 months ago
@civisromae [How can 2 parallel lines cross?] The space-time has a curvature, it bends in the presence of mass. Euclidian axioms are based on the idea of perfect planes, but no such thing exist in nature. Because of this, two lines that are initially parallel in space can cross somewhere, the sum of the internal angles of an triangle is not really 180º, the shortest path between two points is a curve, and so on. Euclidian geometry is valid nowhere except in our minds.
lfzadra 2 months ago
@civisromae Check out the wiki entry on non-euclidean geometry for a primer:
en[dot]wikipedia[dot]org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@civisromae
It's cheating a bit, because for the lines to cross, you have to bend the 2-dimensional plain. But if you bend it, is it really 2-dimensional? Longitude and latitude lines are a good example. If the earth were flat, these lines could be parallel forever. But since this apparant flatness is actually a sphere, the lines that seem parallel actually meet together at the sphere's two axes.
dookdawg214 3 weeks ago
@civisromae That is the definition in euclidean geometry so it's true within that context of course. People used to assume that the laws of the universe followed euclidean geometry, since it is so intuitive. Thanks to relativity (and as confirmed by experiments) we now know the universe is non-euclidean (space-time is curved) and two parallel lines can cross. So euclidean geometry isn't "real", despite being intuitive.
otangis 2 weeks ago
@civisromae @civisromae 2 parallel lines can converge on a curved geometrical surface, such as in non euclidian geometries. A better definition of parallel lines that fits in all geometries is that of two lines which are both perpedicular, in the same plane, to a third line, a a point. In a Euclidian space, these lines would never intersect, that is a fact,but not the definition of parallel. Even in our 4 dimensional world parallel lines draw closer as they pass massive objects
kebilfree17 1 day ago
Kalam Cosmological Fallacy it is!
Bravo, Sisyphus. Bravo.
Mathenaut 2 months ago 5
@SisyphusRedeemed
Thank you for this video. Now I don't have to take hours trying to explain to my future ethics teacher why ethical intuitionism is laughable.
NotWhollySane 2 months ago
Whenever I hear about quantum physics I feel more then a foggy understanding and remembering some factoid is probably largely beyond me. But also that some things about it may indeed be 'queerer then we can suppose' as in 'beyond HUMANITY'
But I wonder, would they be beyond minds better then we have? What if we merged our mind with supercomputers? Would that boost help at all? Computers are great at doing mathematics, they don't forget things.
Or might it be entirely understandable no matter?
TheSkunkCat 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@TheSkunkCat
I guess what I mean to say is... Lets say quantum mechanics core principles are entirely incomprehensible to human minds. That we can work with it, but never UNDERSTAND it. Does that mean it's by it's nature non-understandable, or that this is merely a limit of the human mind, that a greater mind, such as a hypothetical future cyborg mind, could overcome?
Or is it that we simply never can FIND OUT? Then again, I doubt that. Sometimes it just requires new instruments.
TheSkunkCat 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@TheSkunkCat
The reason I ask is because I feel the human mind, even the best ones, are limited things. Ponderous imperfect brains of meat and chemistry. And that maybe with improved brains, the incomprehensible might be more comprehensible at the very least.
After all computers can already crunch numbers better then even the most gifted savants. So there are things conceivable that human minds cannot do, but that a better mind could do.
TheSkunkCat 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@TheSkunkCat I don't think we should take Halden's claim too seriously. It's a reminded to be humble, to not think we've got it all figured out. If we really took his claim to heart, we'd just give up on science (or at least pure research) because what's the point, we'll never 'get it.'
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@TheSkunkCat I like the way you think. Obviously I can't give you an answer, but let's try it and see what happens!
Thetarget1 2 months ago
@TheSkunkCat
FYI...
"than" and "then" are not the same
Your phrases should be...
"I feel more THAN a foggy understanding"
"better THAN we have"
dookdawg214 3 weeks ago
Completely excellent video! Thumb'd 'n fav'd and thoroughly enjoyed. Nail hit squarely on head, and all that. Sub'd too (I don't know how I took so long to find your channel.)
ozmoroid 2 months ago 4
@ozmoroid How interesting, that's exactly what I thought when I subbed to you a few days ago.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago 5
This video was amazing until you injected religion into it. The scientific principles mentioned are true, but they do not relate to a God. Why would you water down such and amazing breakthrough with such trivial theories on God and a guy who obviously speaks out of his ass?
Intuition, thought processes are amazing. Mathematics do not understand it, but like myself, I have the ability to see more than others regarding mental projections. It is not a GOD. Listen. Stop talking. Listen.
tmargette 2 months ago
I would have to wonder why the Creator of Craig's forth supposition has to be his idea of a personal god. What if it was Vishnu dreaming?
MrJimgerard 2 months ago
Excellent Work!
PDracco 2 months ago
I don't see how causality works without time.. Until someone shows me how that works, I don't even see the need to refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument at all.. But I liked your video :)
ttcmp0 2 months ago
This argument proves that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true God. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Yahweh is Jesus, Jesus began to exist to Yahweh began to exist. So Yahweh has a cause and we all know that he was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
UltimateYEC 2 months ago
Craig: "Whatever begins to exist has a cause"
Cat: "Umm... how u no this?"
Craig: "Well, have ever observed anything which begins to exist without a cause?"
Cat: "Has u eva scene anytin which 'begins' to eksist?"
Craig: "Whatever begins to exist has a cause"
Cat: O_O WTF??
Client404 2 months ago
Very good food for thought. This is like biology. You may have one idea for something, but often unexpected things happen when you go out and test your idea.
Ramshobraja 2 months ago
Fantastic video. Around minute 10 I was thinking about my own view on intuition ("good starting point for inquiry, not an endpoint), which you expressed yourself by min. 13. Couldn't agree more.
MonkeyPythagoras 2 months ago
Comment removed
MonkeyPythagoras 2 months ago
I don't understand why people still "ooh" and "aah" at the incompleteness theorem. Not only does it follow trivially from the existence of the computer in front of you right now, but the basic form can be seen from contemporaries of Plato. Frankly, I just think Russel and Whitehead were idiots.
IoEstasCedonta 2 months ago
I doubt I'm the only one who hates and want to wipe that honey-mouthed smile of Craig's face. It wouldn't surprise me if he spends at least half an hour each morning, adoring his smiley face through the bathroom mirror.
DukeTwicep 2 months ago
OMG, you just said everything I always wanted to say about this subject, said it better than I could ever could and made the best summery of the book that should be (and maybe has been) written about this subject anyone would ever could. Thanks for making me able to pass on thinking about something completely different. :)
marco054 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
Kalam Cosmological Fallacy. Im going to start using that term.
Tr3xKuro 2 months ago
good video! i already agreed with everything but i enjoyed it nevertheless
eatingtacos000 2 months ago
Actually, events can occur at the same time. It's just that the *perception" of that event happens at different times in different frames of reference.
Actually, the proof is that Maths can either be consistent, or complete, but not both. Also, when it comes to a solid foundation of Maths, see Bourbaki.
CrispyGreyMatter 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@CrispyGreyMatter If there is no absolute space-time, that no one inertial reference frame is preferential to any other than I don't believe it makes sense to assert that events do occur at the same time and it is just our perceptions of it that differ. If not all inertial reference frames agree if two events occur simultaneously and neither have claim to being the absolute frame than no simultaneity occurs.
HeadofRadio 2 months ago
@CrispyGreyMatter cont. no universal simultaneity occurs because our choice of reference frame is arbitrary
HeadofRadio 2 months ago
uncertainty principle. What a madhouse of posibility.
attheveryend 2 months ago
well done!
attheveryend 2 months ago
Related video about why Kalam with extensive detail why isn't valid:
watch?v=Ax27g5ZKa-w
HarshColby 2 months ago
awesome
Synestematic 2 months ago
I'm not convinced the argument requires an "absolute reliance on intuition" anymore than arguments do generally. However, I do not find the negation of Craig's premises to be very counterintuitive. I can imagine them to be false without difficulty. That is quite unlike imagining that parallel lines intersect or that 2+2=3. In other words his argument is insufficiently justified via intuition.
mageslime 2 months ago
Godel did not prove that mathematics by necessity is incomplete. He proved that finite formal systems are incomplete. He used this to argue that computers can never know as much about math as human beings, and therefore we are not computers.
mageslime 2 months ago
Craig has stated that he believes that Jesus performed exorcisms.
His use of the cosmological argument is transparently disingenuous. He co-opts quotes from physicists, and tips his cap to science, but he's clearly not bound by science.
It's unseemly.
HellRehab 2 months ago
Oooh, jeeez, I really could'e used this level of reasoning the other day, because I was an atheist, but then the Mormons knocked on my door, you see.... What was I to do?
Rarae192 2 months ago
I am a Theist but the kalam argument always baffled me as i can fallow it up to point 3 then 4 comes and leaps wildly saying things are that are not obvious and just a lazy shoehorning in of whatever premise you want to prove. They are only obvious to someone who considers no other possibility.
FattyMcFox 2 months ago 12
This has been flagged as spam show
@FattyMcFox Great video. But to be fair, he misrepresented the Kalam argument. It only has 2 premises and a conclusion. The 4th line he added is an entirely different argument with its own logical reasoning behind it that Craig then joins with the Kalam argument to argue for God's existence. But the way this vid put it makes it sound as though Craig made that leap in logic within the Kalam argument, which is not true. I am atheist, but I am fair as well.
KDN888 2 months ago
Does anyone know what song that is on the very end of the video?
Wushuki 2 months ago
@Wushuki "Peacock" by Stripmall Architecture.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Thanks.
Wushuki 2 months ago
Great video. And I would suspect that is the real lesson of Schrodinger's cat. The true state of affairs is determined by observation not by intuition.
squareatheist 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
OK I am not going to read +500 comments, instead I'll say you probably won't find a physicist confirming that particles really travel back in time, if you wanna look into that again.
Baerchenization 2 months ago
@Baerchenization Isn't that the current understanding of neutrinos and tachyons? I'm not a physicist, so I very well could be wrong, but that's what I thought the state of play was.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed While the OPERA result is taken seriously, most physicists don't seem to think it will turn out to be correct. As far as 'tachyons' go, such particles have never been observed, and if my understanding of quantum field theory is correct, they won't be.
schrodingasdawg 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed As far as particles going back in time---it turns out that you can (mathematically) transform matter into anti-matter by reversing the direction of time (in the theory), so Feynman poetically interpreted this as meaning anti-particles are particles going backwards in time. I think that's where you might have heard of particles going backwards in time, and I don't think anyone takes this any more seriously than they take Dirac's sea of holes.
schrodingasdawg 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
Well, I am a curious party myself, only. But I would say that of course the current wisdom is that you (or anything) cannot go back in time. A quick googling "particles travel back in time" seems to reveal that this is rather the laymen getting it the wrong way, e.g. "physicsforums" link
If you mean the recent CERN finding re. neutrinos, that is not a scientific fact, that is merely submitted to scrutiny (and most likey wrong)
Baerchenization 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed tachyons are still hypothetical, and it's still on the verge of being confirmed that neutrinos can go faster than light (and there are other explanations on offer than that meaning they go backwards in time)
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Neutrinos still haven't been proven to travel faster than light, so its unsure whether they travel back in time. Tachyons have been hypothesized to travel faster than light, but they've never been observed, they're still a hypothesis. If they do exist, however, then they would travel backwards in time.
Tzacharu123 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
Tachyons are purely hypothetical. The neutrino speed experiment still needs a whole lot of replication to be accepted.
scarshapedstar 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed no, it isn't. Tachyons are not proven to exist, and neutrinos are not (proven to be) moving backwards in time. The backwards-in-time motion is usually used as a tool in QED for antiparticles.
qbz32 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed I'm in physics, and It is in play, though most people are thinking that the experiments had a slight error in them. (the excess of c was only very slight)
It is still up in the air enough though that no one wants to say for sure though.
JohananRaatz 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed I don't know about neutrinos traveling backwards in time but tachyons are theoretical particles which only travel backwards in time and faster than light, it would take infinite energy to slow them down to lightspeed. Their existence has yet to be established but it's predicted by modern Physics as was Black Holes a hundred years ago.
MrJimgerard 2 months ago
@Baerchenization I've heard other day that it was hypothesised by scientists that what we perceive as antiparticles can in fact be normal particles traveling back in time, for example positon can be electron traveling back in time, and when those particles "collide" (positon and electron), that is in fact a looping of electron( electron going forward and then backward in time), thats why they "annihilate" when "colliding". But thats just a hypothesis i think.
Tudrum2 2 months ago
Amazing. I'll have to give a small nag about the end music... too loud compared to the voice ^^;
Mtaalas 2 months ago 3
@Mtaalas Yeah, sorry about that. I tried to reduce the volume, but my editing program didn't agree.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
very interesting, though i can't help but feel uncomfortable.
Mystro1989 2 months ago
Thumbs up if you liked Thunderf00t's comment JUST because it's from Thunderf00t
AntiMatterWave 2 months ago
What a thought provoking video. Thanks!
KittJT2 2 months ago
I really enjoyed this thought provoking video. Thank you.
I was just wondering if the emission of (say) a beta particle from a nucleus would count as an empirical disproof of premise 1? I understand it to be a spontaneous and random event which cannot be explained by any "hidden clockwork" inside the nucleus.
GETH7 2 months ago
@GETH7 I wouldn't go so far as to say it's 'disproof', but it certainly seems to create problems for P1. Before we go as far as saying it disproves P1 we have to do a lot more careful analysis and consideration of the evidence, the theory, the measurement apparatus, etc., work which is frankly beyond my humble capacities. I'm more than content to just say it's far more complicated than Craig would have us believe.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
Really nicely done. Thanks for doing these. They are immeasurable valuable!
misterdeity 2 months ago
@misterdeity I could (and have) said the same about your work, good sir. Thank you kindly for the compliment.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed 13:29 Way too loud music at the end. I was contemplating the question mark at the bottom left of the illustration there, and I really don't like quantum mechanics at all. It scares me, though I'm a naturalist.
Your outro gave me a near-heart attack. Otherwise, a splendid video with a lot of good points and many sources; I enjoyed the Daniel Dennett quote in particular!
Pomme843 2 months ago
@Pomme843 Yeah, sorry about the music. I tried to lower the volume, but for some reason my editing program decided not to comply. I don't think that's a verbatim quote from Dennett, it's more like a paraphrase of something I heard him say once, but yeah, the sentiment is great.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
P1. For everything that begins to exist, there also exist a time in which it did not exist.
P2. The is no time in which the Universe did not exist.
C. Therefore the Universe did not begin to exist.
One of my main issues with Kalam is it's sloppy use of the word "begins". WLC points to similarities between what begins in our everyday world to the Universe. So I point out the ways in which they are not.
piprod01 2 months ago
@piprod01
A response to that would be "there was no time at all beyond the universe's existence." So your P2 is really a bit of a clever trick. :)
AgApE010 2 months ago
@piprod01 Hmm... I don't think I've ever seen that argument before. At first glance, I must say I rather like it. Thank you, good sir, for bringing it to my attention.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
:) Thanks!
I'd like to think it's original! Have been sitting on it for a few weeks now, and have been busy with stuff. I should get some time over Christmas to explain the background a bit better and post it on a currently non-existent blog.
So far, I've just been testing the water and gauging responses.
piprod01 2 months ago
@piprod01
I wonder if we can honestly say that something exists at time "0". I sort of balk at that, because I don't want to fall into the dualism of asserting the existence of nonbeing. I think it may make more sense to say that it approaches 0.
I'm just worried that that argument commits us to a certain notion of being that we may not want to commit ourselves to.
insidetrip101 2 months ago
The statement "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is nonsensical even on an intuitive level. How many things have WLC seen begin existing? I sure as hell haven't. How so is this intuitively true or even plausible then?
itsjustameme 2 months ago
@itsjustameme I made a somewhat similar argument in a previous video called "Mereology is a Harsh Mistress".
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
Intuition is actually very useful and shouldn't be discounted... on a human scale.
When deal with humans and other animals or basic cause and effect physics our intuition is great. Basically it's good for anything we've evolved to deal with. Unfortunately things work a bit differently when dealing with the truly vast or miniscule. It all comes down to scale. We just don't have the capacity to intuitively know anything beyond our scale. We require other means for determining how such things work.
Arikiel 2 months ago
@Arikiel I don't say we should discard intuition (actually, at the end of the video I specifically say we shouldn't), but I do think it's very prone to error, even on the human scale. Take a look at the material on intuitive physics, for example. We seem to be hard-wired for Aristotelianism, which is certainly false, despite being on the human scale.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
You know, I had this same exact arguement with DawahFilms about two weeks ago. If I'd recognized at the time just how unoriginal and unexamined his position was, I'd not have bothered.
Dream0Asylum 2 months ago
Thunderf00t brought me.
xBlake4 2 months ago 23
@xBlake4 Looks like I owe him a pint. Please look around, make yourself at home, happy to have you.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
You know your video rocks when thunderf00t comments on it :D
airman665544 2 months ago
i dont know too much about physics but heisenbergs principle states that we cannot know both the position and momentum of a particle, not the position and velocity
SuckMikeHunt 2 months ago
@SuckMikeHunt Yes, that was a mistake on my part. But in my defense, momentum just is mass X velocity, so I wasn't that far off.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
I always learn something from your videos, especially when I re-watch them months later. :)
BornWithoutReligion 2 months ago
@BornWithoutReligion Very kind of you to say. Although I must admit that sometimes when I rewatch my own stuff I do wonder what the hell I was thinking when I wrote it. So far at least, that hasn't happened on this video.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
The premise "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is still reasonable insomuch as all things that we see that begin to exist have a cause for their existence (unless virtual particles be the exception, but we still await absolute proof of this). It's especially hard to see how one would disagree with this if one is an empiricist. Thus, to just wave your hand and say "intuition has failed before" is not a successful refutation of this premise.
AgApE010 2 months ago
@AgApE010 I didn't say it refuted the premise. I said it undermined the justification for the premise. The premise may still be true, but we don't have a good reason for thinking that it is true.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
You wouldn't consider our experience, which shows us that everything that begins to exist has a cause, as good reason for thinking that it is true?
AgApE010 2 months ago
@AgApE010 You need to define what you mean by "begins to exist." Do you mean comes from nothing or simply takes on a different form?
MewCat100 2 months ago
@MewCat100
Either one. But you're missing the point. The point is causality itself, not the nature of the substances of the effects.
AgApE010 2 months ago
@AgApE010 It cannot be either one as they are two different concepts entirely. The point is not causality if the two are the same. I am no different from god using your explanation as I have created a number of things that never before existed, though they were in a different from at one point and I did not make something from nothing (which is impossible anyway). You see, the KCA is just rhetorical BS, there is no logical underpinning.
MewCat100 2 months ago
@AgApE010
[ as good reason for thinking that it is true? ]
You'd be justified in thinking it's a possibility, perhaps a strong one. And you could be reasonable in applying your experience to things unobserved. However, being possible and reasonable is not an identical notion to being true.
There are no 100% complete or absolute truths until one has 100% complete and absolute knowledge. What we arrive at currently are supported, reasoned, and tested guesses.
Dream0Asylum 2 months ago
@AgApE010 Wait.... So we have witnessed something to "begin to exist"? I have never seen something come from nothing, thus i have never seen something "begin to exist", i have only ever witnessed something converting to another... Something becoming something else... Conservation of energy anyone? Maybe i am forgetting something due to my memory problems :/
IronicAtheist 2 months ago
@IronicAtheist
"Begin to exist" does not necessarily equal "something from nothing." "Beginning to exist" and "something converting to another" is mere semantics. Besides, you're missing the point. The point is causality itself, not the nature of the substances of the effects.
AgApE010 2 months ago
@AgApE010 The big bang was ALL energy in the universe in a state smaller then an atom, so i think it is safe to say things might have been different then things are now. Thus human observation may not be good enough until we can calculate all possibilities during the big bang and/or before it. The beginning if it can be called that is MUCH more unknown then anything we have ever theorized, etc... So we need to know alot more then we do now to be anything close to sure :/
IronicAtheist 2 months ago
@IronicAtheist
What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that the nature of causality was different at the Big Bang? What is the justification for this other than "things were probably different because they were different"?
AgApE010 2 months ago
@AgApE010 At this point your basically saying a god is nothing special, because we humans "create" things in the sense you mention. More specifically we take 1 thing and make something else exist with it. So we are god? I mean