The Kalam Cosmological Fallacy: A Brief History of the Failures of Intuition

No description available.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• The
• Kalam
• Cosmological
• Fallacy

[civisromae]

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.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@civisromae Check out the wiki entry on non-euclidean geometry for a primer:

en[dot]wikipedia[dot]org/wiki/­Non-Euclidean_geometry

[Mathenaut]

Kalam Cosmological Fallacy it is!

Bravo, Sisyphus. Bravo.

[TheAikenHead]

There is a reason why intelligent people know this as the "Calamitous Cosmogical Non-Argument".

[kebilfree17]

@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

[x42brown]

@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.

[subRegCoder]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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!

[subRegCoder]

@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