Science and Causality
Found a great channel that breaks down advanced physics in a very understandable format. I've been seeing the question of, "What is causality?" quite a bit on these boards, and his break down on the theory of relativity demonstrates that time is essentially a representation of causality. If you are very familiar with spacetime graphs, feel free to skip to 10:18 or so.
I highly suggest the entire video though, even if you're familiar with the concepts. I'm curious to see what people think.
I highly suggest the entire video though, even if you're familiar with the concepts. I'm curious to see what people think.
Comments (86)
Ha! I have been watching this funny video recently. About the gradient of time and the squirl falling. On top of the squirk time moves faster than below. This makes the squirl fall. But what if the squirl is contracted to a point? Well, a point also falls as the gravity field is the same as in a rocket accelerating in empty space so everything seems accelerating towards you. What are the problems with time? I cannot see any.
Is causality more fundamental than time? If time is reversed effect becomes cause and cause effect. Instead of acting from the inside we seem to be acted upon from outside. We would feel like a clockwork unwinding.
The video doesn't answer the question.
Ah! In this one the gradient of time ain't discussed. There is another one with the same guy.
A particle is a disturbance/movement of a field/bit of spacetime.
Time is duration of motion and is relative.
No universal quanta is motionless.
That's how I currently conceive spacetime anyway.
I also remain most convinced by the theory that the fundamental is some form of interdimensional vibrating string.
Two threads in one! One in your domain, one in mine. Spacetime is spacetime. Motion is motion.
Quoting universeness
No. A particle is not a movement of a field or bit of spacetime.
Quoting universeness
What's a universal quanta?
Quoting universeness
Rethink spacetime.
Quoting universeness
While it solves some problems, it still uses renormalization. Indicating the string view is wrong and has to be replaced by a more fundamental unit.
I think they are entwined not separate.
Quoting Haglund
From: https://www.newscientist.com/definition/quantum-field-theory/?msclkid=8db02db7c2dc11ec801ce7d9673dde45
Quantum field theory marries the ideas of other quantum theories to depict all particles as “excitations” that arise in underlying fields.
Quoting Haglund
From the macro to the sub-atomic. Galaxies,stars, planets, atoms, quarks, photons.
Quoting Haglund
All good scientists do that all the (space)time. It's mostly theists who restrict their own thinking.
Yes. A particle is considered an excitation of a field. And a field is an operator valued distribution, the operators being creation and annihilation operators in Fock space (for a pleasant stay...). But what is described in Fock space? It's a direct product of one particle free wavefunctions in a Hilbert space. The wavefunctions describe a particle. That's what real. The particles, virtual or real, are the reality. Not the formal system of math.
Quoting universeness
Ah! I misunderstood. I though you meant quanta as in quantum fields.
Quoting universeness
How do you know that? Im a theist and have given it a fair amount of thought.
What IS is what is most important. The LHC has just been switched on again and it's a new enhanced machine (Yea!) so let's see what it finds. Perhaps all a particle is IS a motion/ripple/disturbance in a bit of spacetime. Just like a disturbance/wave in a liquid such as water.
Quoting Haglund
Well, you are an unconvincing polytheist in my opinion, and it's that degree of freedom that allows your brain to do scientific thinking as well. You reject dogmatic restrictions such as you cannot know the mind of god. You have even stated that your gods don't satisfy the omni's. YOUR gods find this hard to do and that hard to do. YOUR god descriptions suggest they are as flawed as we are and not much more powerful. YOUR gods are kinda wimps actually. I think future transhumans could kick their ass out of the Universe. Just as well they don't exist!
Ill telya what they find. Lepton or quark substructure! Yeehaa! :grin: They should smash electrons!
Quoting universeness
It's not my intention to convince. Rather to counter new atheist. Which is based on science. Gods are indeed no God of Xenophanes. Luckily.
Quoting universeness
In fact(!) heaven is the almost the same as the universe. All life in the universe has a counterpart up there. The transhumans have no counterpart in heaven. They can kick what they want... In vain! :starstruck:
New atheist is a dumb commercially invented term. It's just the same atheism but now they are a lot less afraid of the traditional threats from religious crazies. I think the current atheist position is somewhere between 'here are our arguments to counter yours,' and 'you wanna war? then we'll give you a war!'
What you think of the new atheists and the far right?
I read the article and looked for some info on the salon news group and its owners.
I always listen to warnings from left-leaning groups against individuals who have celebrity status but I need my own trusted sources to confirm their claims.
I do not hold with some of the political viewpoints of Sam Harris, Dan Dennet, Richard Dawkins,and Christopher Hitchens (whose brother Peter Hitchens, is a political idiot and a theist). I fully support their views on atheism not politics. I agree with most of the stated political viewpoints I have heard the people named above state (apart from Peter Hitchens) but not all.
An atheist can hold many other disturbing viewpoints as well as being an atheist. I would combat any such views with the same determination that I combat the preaching theist or those who advocate theism. My politics are left, socialist, democratic, humanist and green-leaning.
In my experience, capitalists and the far right are interested in personal wealth and power. They consider themselves superior to humans of a different culture, ethnicity or creed.
Politically, I would defend theists against right-wing atheists but I would still argue against their theism.
I hear reason speaking here! I would trust you as PM, but not the people in the article. In a sense they are exactly the same as the theist preachers. Why they wanna convince, persuade, or change?
There is nothing against advocating. Why? What's against it? Atheists do the same for science. It's bad if a view becomes an institute of power and state. And science and state are married as God was once married with State too. Both are unhappy marriages though.
That's what a true humanist/socialist/democrat must be and must demonstrate.
If the people put their trust in you and give you power then you MUST do what you said you will do in the time you said you would do it. At every stage, you must explain what you are doing and why (fully open government,). If you fail, then you must fully explain why, to those you represent. They must then choose what will happen next. Accept your updated plan when you explain it and give you more time to try or you must give up your position and let another vote take place where alternative positions.
I am becoming an advocate of a more progressive politics. Party politics have a bad reputation. I think a government should be made up of elected individuals with no 'party label.' You should be elected based on issues you will fight for and against. The government should be made up of all those elected. Opposition or agreement should be on an issue by an issue basis.
These so called "new atheists" are turning atheism into a new religion.
Atheists don't believe in God and end of story, new atheists go one step further and preach there is no God, that's a fundamental difference between the 2.
I did not and do not say that individuals should not or cannot preach/advocate theism/capitalism or even more extreme views. I stated that I would strongly argue against the wisdom and truth of their viewpoint. If any individual or group uses threat or force to strengthen or progress their position then it is valid to defend with equal threat or force in the defense of the majority.
Powerful checks and balances must be in place which ensures nefarious individuals or groups never gain or hold any significant positions of powerful. The military/police can never be fully controlled by the government alone. Defense emergency must be under government control due to response time but war declaration can only be made after gaining the democratic consent of the majority represented.
:100:
You mean by more extreme views the scientific view? Because that's what the new atheists preach. With the sane vigor, if nit more,I might humbly add, the theists advicate theism. I say with more vigor, because they are so convinced that they are right. The say they know they are right, while theists believe it.
Nonsense!
Atheists suggest there is close to zero evidence of the god posit.
The word 'preach,' refers to delivering a sermon or religious address to an assembled group of people, typically in church. Atheists don't preach.
No, I was referring to more extreme political or social views.
Science is not a religion so it cannot be preached. The empirical evidence for a scientific theory is presented, not preached. If there is little or no scientific evidence available then a hypothesis is presented but, unlike theism, hypothesis, is never presented as fact and it is just emotional nonsense to suggest any science is ever preached. Such is just presented by bitter theists or by individuals who are just bitter in general because they feel life has not treated them fairly.
Then you, sofar, haven't given reasonable arguments against theism.
I of course completely disagree and would say the same regarding your arguments for polytheism.
Of course it can be preached. It's done at our schools, like in bible class, but with different bibles and traditions. It presupposes one reality the same for all. In which I believe too, but there are more of these kind if realities. That's the postmodern attitude. Reality relativism, breaking free from the idea Xenoohanes, Plato, and other Greek introduced once upon a time. The thing is, the scientific belief has power and is institutionalized. Which is wrong.
It's not my intention to give arguments in favor of them. I only do so because you argue against it. I can't help it you don't understand the arguments.
by "preaching" I mean they're all shaking to be heard.
For them it is not enough that God doesn't exist, they strive to convert believers into non believers.
The most zealous speaker about new atheism and how there is no God is by no doubt Richard Dawkins, I remember one of his videos that he made (I can find it if you wish), he went near the crowd of Catholic sermon somewhere (there was some 1000 people attending the sermon), he was filming it and telling viewers something along the lines "look at all those people! they believe in God".
That's just pathetic and way beyond regular atheism, he is clearly preaching it, devoting his time to preaching atheism.
You may find this video informative because articulators are mostly all new atheists, I think that's the video I was referring to but not sure, it was long time ago I watched it:
No that would be a contradiction of the term 'preach.'
I was a teacher of 30+ years and I taught computer SCIENCE.
I did not preach the subject to my pupils. I taught them.
You are engaging in emotional sophistry.
Quoting Haglund
Seriously? you argue in favour merely because others argue against? You are just playing the role of devils advocate?
It's hardly surprising then that I find your polytheism suspect and suggest you are merely role-playing.
I understand your arguments perfectly well, which is why I am able to reject them offhand.
Not that causality is more fundamental than time. Causality IS time. You have to put Einstein on hold: time is the condition of the perceptual apparatus that is available to Einstein so that he could make observations and think at all. First perception, then science, is the order of analysis.
You offer an imbalanced position. I agree that atheists wish to engage theists in debate and are 'happy' when a theist declares that they no longer believe in the god/ religious dogma that they did believe in. I have witnessed such during phone-in shows with Matt Dillahunty and other atheist phone-in shows.
I say you offer imbalance, as you do not cite the many examples of theist attempts to convert people to their cause. Some such evanhellical examples are much more aggressive than anything you can find from atheist groups. Atheists don't knock on my door to talk to me about their atheism but Mormons, Jehovah witnesses, et al, do knock on my door and attempt to preach their religion to me. They even accost people on the streets, unlike atheists.
I don't think much of Rod Liddle. He is a Church of England theist who holds some very suspect viewpoints. I don't think he could produce a balanced piece on atheism if his life depended upon it.
I was asked to teach math. But I refused. Only privately once in a while. Physics and math. In schools it's preaching. Teaching is preaching. And the young ones must learn by law. I didn’t wamt to be some refined slavedriver.
The balance is in favor of the atheists. Why should they feel happy if they succeed in taking someone's theism?
As I said, you are engaging in emotional sophistry and what is the difference in teaching maths privately to publically? I taught maths as well both in the classroom and as a private tutor. Mathematical addition and subtraction work the same way in private as they do in public. If you want to discuss your political opinions of how schools should be run then do so, don't try to muddy science with your political and emotional sophistry.
They did not take it, they exposed its lack of evidence and in doing so have freed some of its enslaved/duped/conned minds. The balance is in the favour of the atheists because they have better arguments compared to the theists.
Yes. But not as playing advocate of the devil. I don't believe in the devil. I believe in gods, so I offer stuff against the atheists. Arguments, reasons, examples, knowledge, etc.
Theism has other means to proof than theists . By obliging theists to adopt these means, the take god away.
The devil is just god dressed in red, wearing a mask with a couple of horns.
You are on the correct track with 'I don't believe in the devil.' Perhaps you will one day add /gods
to the sentence and you can stop your roleplay with polytheism for good.
We can turn the table and ask atheist to see the gods are no fantasy by adopting a non-scientific proof. There are enough of these proofs.
This makes little sense to me.
theists unlike atheists have a duty to convert, therefore it's normal for theists to attempt to convert although many don't practice that. but it's not normal for atheists since atheism is about disbelief in God, not about spreading religion.
That's why I find these "new atheists" practicing "atheist religion" strange, they are forming some sort of a church.
Quoting universeness
I warmly recommend to watch the video anyway, it's one of the best because is speaks about "new atheism" point of view.
Who is playing panto now? Or cos play...
Of course not. Because you adopt the scientific proof.
Yeah, good luck with that! Turn, turn that table until you can turn that table no more.
Perhaps all that table turning will make your gods appear and I can say wow! you were correct all along.
I wouldn't bet your life on that happening if I were you.
The gods in your head!
Quoting Haglund
No, I just could not understand the context of your words in English? It was your English that made little sense to me.
Why shouldn't I turn the table and accept the scientific way of proof?
Quoting universeness
No, it's you putting on masks on gods.
Yeah well English is not my native language. What I meant is that we could ask the scientist another way of proving things.
What a convenient excuse for the outrageous behavior of theists preachers, such as, "join us, or suffer in hell for eternity." I find the fact that you see atheists as forming a religion, 'strange,' and incorrect.
I watched this particular Rod Liddle offering before as well. I had a quick scan through it again and was reminded of the 'out of context, sound bite technique,' he commonly employs.
Please continue to try!
Quoting Haglund
I know it's not. I think scientists are happy with the scientific method, but sure, you can ask. I think they will ignore you however or repeat that they are happy with the method they have as it is better than any alternative you offer. I would agree with them.
And that's exactky where the digma appears!
lol, fanatics do exist, but this is not conversion.
Quoting universeness
atheists enjoy "out of context" methods because it's the easiest way to undermine theist dogma, mostly because a lot of theist are not apologists, atheists use it as well known tool for attack.
Yours? Or what you claim is theirs?
Quoting universeness
When you say that your means of proof is better.
I disagree and would suggest that atheists defend much more than they attack.
Atheists don't have to attack, they just let theists put their god posits forward and then provide them with counterpoints that expose the weakness in their arguments and the gaping holes in their reasoning skills.
Theism is fear-based, a plea to non-existent supernaturals that theists wish to scapegoat for their own personal life choices or to make sense of what happened to them during their life outwith their personal control. They plead for the non-existent supernatural to assist them, give them absolution and/or offer them something better in the future or after they are dead. Primal fear of the unknown is a powerful driver towards theism but it can be defeated by rational thought.
Richard Dawkins, in an interview, makes it a point to say that on a scale of 1 to 10, his certainty that there's no God is a 7. He's not a complete atheist to the extent and degree certainty in one's position counts.
His stance is that even if God exists, He's not worth worshipping for the following good reasons:
[quote=Richard Dawkins]The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.[/quote]
Which makes him a prejudiced atheist, as gods don't conform to that image.
:100:
Praise the gods, dolleylujah, Juppijahwey!
This quote is perfect example for "out of context" method, because he puts forward presumably only negative connotations without asking or saying anything why is that so?
are you atheist since ever or have you been believer once but no more?
Dawkins' good pal, Dan Baker has, if memory serves, taken care of that.
I even had a person who earned his living as a theist of Protestantism say to me that he knew a secret truth that was not known by many but was accepted by the highest authorities in both the protestant and catholic faiths.
It was a few years later when he was a little pissed one night at a gathering and he said that the god of the old testament was overthrown by the god of the new testament. I think that was the big secret he was talking about. Perhaps he was just 'winding me up,' I have no idea but I did think he was a bizarre theist after that. That was about 25 years ago and I have never seen him since.
Some strange fruits grow on those theistic burning bushes.
nice "secret", I have secret that is 100 times more powerful :smile:
his secret was accepted because Christianity was born, obviously Jews didn't become Christianized, there was massacre in Jerusalem starting with Joseph first martyr because of Jesus and his teachings.
So yes, one God overthrown another, but that applies more to Jews than to Christians.
I remember getting dragged by my big sister along to a church group when I was about 10 years old, she was 12.
I remember a lot of singing and handclapping. I remember being taken into a small room and 4 men standing around me with hands placed on my waist, shoulder and head as they said some words that meant nothing to me. They then asked me to speak something and I remained in awkward intrigued silence. I remember them taking all the youngsters in a van to the countryside. We had a good day and had to listen to crap psalm-singing on the van radio.
After about a month of this I remember my sister telling me we couldn't go back as the leadership of the group had just been arrested and were charged with fraud and abuse of young girls etc(not my sister thankfully).
That was my only experience with a religious group. I have no memory of ever being convinced by any of the god posits.
It's my guess you don't like that theists have some kind of hidden knowledge you have no access to. Which makes you rationalize it and pull it in the domain of primal fears ir whatever. So basically it's because you don't understand it.
It's clear now why you're an atheist! My deer god... :pray:
That's just woo woo in my opinion. I am no more concerned about that than I am about magicians doing tricks I can't figure out.
I think I do understand perfectly well and my comment that personal theism comes from personal primal fear is correct.
Which is another example if your digmatism... eeeh, dogmatism. Digit?
you were dragged into a sect, I'm glad you escaped, these are crazy people indeed.
it kind of explains why so much disgust toward religious.
:lol: I hope that's just your bad English! Don't tell me you believe that Deer have gods as well as your previous claim that Dino gods once existed or still do!
Quoting Haglund
Well, all I can respond with to that is a wee cheeky woof woof.
:lol:
Damn you mr. Universe! :lol:
Yeah, I was too young to know what was going on anyway so I and my sister were relatively unscathed by the experience.
I try not to conflate what some people do whilst flying a religious flag. I don't blame every theists or theism in general for the atrocities of some religious doctrines and its followers.
I am interested in the evidence for the god posit. I find none that is compelling.
I am therefore currently an atheist. I have said this many times but I do feel this to be very true for me.
I don't need the supernatural because I find the natural so super.
At least life offers us both a moment to have a wee laugh together now and then.
Viva la vida!!!
Causality......first cause......science versus god.
Causality doesn't have to result in origin debates. I honestly posted this because I was seeing some people on this board have issues understanding what causality was.
Yes! :love: :starstruck: :party:
We ended up in the wring thread indeed! There is another thread about atheism. Conflation and confusion...
What was the thread about?
Science and causality. Another about causality. Lots if causality going on. What would cause that?
Ok, I appreciate your complaint. I will humbly bow out of the thread. You are the author.
You may be an atheist but at least you're a funny one! And nice to argue with! And speaking of woof woof. Someone staring me in the face...
:smile: :up:
What if the people don't want gene tinkering and transhuman construction, spacetravel, computers with a mind, and all other fantasies you like?
I always had a feeling that string theory was crazy balls. :)
:lol:
My man! Strings are crazy balls... :lol:
Indeed! I envìsion a particle as a 6d space of which three are curled up to Planck sized circles. On this hyper sphere (actually the direct product S1xS1xS1) charge is injected. So every particle looks poinlike from a distance, while in reality it's a tiny sphere. The nice thing about them is that they cant form a singularity, like in a black hole. They all fit in one another, like you can squeeze tiny circles on a tiny long tube or cylinder. If gravity pulls them together no point can form.
Oh wow, you're saying that a blackhole would cause an infinite chain-reaction of more blackholes were it not for these properties of the particle?
I will answer this in another thread as I respect @Philosophim's request to stick to the OP and discuss causality.
Dont think I said that. The formation of a black hole is rather tricky. The formation of the event horizon, I mean. Once it's there, does it grow? How can a small hole, seen from the outside, evolve into a massive one? This question has implications for the supermassive black holes in galaxies. Primordial bh are lately seen to be dark matter. An idea already proposed by Hawking way back. I think he was right.
Read it! :up:
Ah, I see, very interesting. :)
Yes. And that's all it is. Black holes can be mind boggling. "Boggle boggle".
Cause: energy/mass 'falls into,' the black hole.
Effect: the spherical expanse of the black hole increases.
Nothing more than that afaik.