Thunderf00t Fails on Causality Again

Thunderf00t misunderstands basic introductory logic and attributes a problem with causality to the law of identity. In the process, he simply begs the question.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Thunderf00t
• science
• free
• will
• God
• failure
• rebuttle
• fail
• owned

[MumblingMickey]

CONT>

Clarification:

I'm using the number of 2 places in this example, but entangled particles thus far are not in just '2' place simultaneously (as far as we know) the number of specific locations could be infinite in time and space.

So the whole idea of space and time between those particles is not something that is considered in fact its irrelevant.

For all we know an entangled particles partners could exist simultaneously a million light years away 10 billion years ago, or hence.

[MumblingMickey]

@owchywawa "using science to disprove or to prove it is circular reasoning"

as opposed to? Theres some other methodology other than logic and reason you were considering perhaps?

Sorry you totally lost me there... nobody said that causality needs to be there... its a hypothetical construct... like for example the goldbach conjecture.

Not sure where you got the idea that causality is automatically accepted as caste in stone by physics...

[MumblingMickey]

@owchywawa The actual presupposition was that time in this universe was constant...and unaffected by anything... we know now that this presupposition was incorrect. Time like all properties of the universe is dependent on other properties.

But those ideas were made at a time in the 19th century when science was practiced but not regimented.

Also if you thought you did know anything about quantum mechanics...then you don't know anything about quantum mechanics 'a quick physicists joke there'

[MumblingMickey]

@owchywawa This is relatively simple... just stop thinking about time as if it was a stream of events flowing from the past through the present into the future... and start thinking of it as a byproduct of the mass and energy in the universe.

So its not a straight line... its a lumpy soup... its not two dimensional either... which I'll admit is hard to conceive of. All the properties you apply to causation are fine if time was a neat little line, but its not.

[MumblingMickey]

@owchywawa becasue those particles are not 'two things' they are one single thing...

maybe you are a little confused and I'm not explaining this too well...??!?!

I dunno... I never mentioned reverse time travel, matter cannot cross the barrier presented by relativity... it has mass! however massless particles.. like photons for example don't have such a problem.

What I'm saying is NO not everything had a cause that predated the event. In fact the start of the universe didn't have any mass!

[owchywawa]

@MumblingMickey Why say something is in two places at once when you can say something ceased to be one thing and became two things? Why complicate things when, by definition, something in two places at once are two things?

So, now you're talking about reverse time travel... Can we just take a step back and ask why this even matters? WLC claims that every thing that begins to exist requires a cause. If time did not act linearly, how would this premise be false?

[owchywawa]

@MumblingMickey "your 'presupposition' ceased to be a 'presupposition'"

The issue is that, if science is based upon the presupposition of causality, then using science to disprove or to prove it is circular reasoning.

I don't know much about quantum mechanics, but I know it couldn't possibly prove or disprove causality. You can always say there is no known cause for X, but you can never show that there is no Y affect it because that would require omniscience. continued...

[MumblingMickey]

@owchywawa To put my cards on the table here I do know rather a lot about this, given your response you might not.

But essentially what I'm saying is that your 'presupposition' ceased to be a 'presupposition' somewhere around the 1960's. Which in terms of knowledge of QM may as well be the 1760's given what we've discovered since.

Again as I said this is only proven in the mathematical sense and with observation with limited applications. There is as of yet no consensus as to why this occurs.

[MumblingMickey]

@owchywawa However its weirder than that... if one particle exhibits the property of being in two places simultaneously..can it also be there at different times? at least as we understand times? Moreover can it be in a position in time before it was sent to that position....?

Again the answer that we have at the moment is yes... ie... a cause (a beam of photons) can be detected in two places... and in one of those places its detected whilst it was enroute...

The effect preceded the cause.