You totally and utterly seriously lost me here — Hillary

I was just trying to be as ridiculous as you were being.
You implied that I envisaged an electron as being stuffed with photons.
I tried to explain to you that I found your suggestion as ridiculous as suggesting that everything in the Universe was made from the 4 elements the ancients believed made up the Universe.

If you had some knowledge of physics I would accept that. But you havent! — Hillary

Your point here is moot as I am not challenging your physics with mine, I am challenging your physics with what other physicists say.

You implied that I envisaged an electron as being stuffed with photons. — universeness

How else if you envision it as absorbed? The photon just stays the photon. If two electrons have couple by means if the photon, the photon gets closed from a line to a circle again. Return to the quantum bubble.

was just trying to be as ridiculous as you were being.
You implied that I envisaged an electron as being stuffed with photons.
I tried to explain to you that I found your suggestion as ridiculous as suggesting that everything in the Universe was made from the 4 elements the ancients believed made up the Universe.
32mReplyOptions — universeness

You lost me. Who talks about water fire air and earth. You! Still dont understand why you write universum with a U...

Your point here is moot as I am not challenging your physics with mine, I am challenging your physics with what other physicists say. — universeness

But you dont understand other physicists. What then do they say? Quote please! you make things up!

I gave examples of profs who agree. Where are the arguments of the experts you refer to? Please, evidence instead of "the expert says".

How else if you envision it as absorbed? — Hillary

A photon is an energy packet, not a billiard ball, of course, it can be absorbed. What's happening in photosynthesis if energy cant be absorbed?

But you dont understand other physicists. What then do they say? Quote please! you make things up! — Hillary

Oh I know enough about physics and I can understand what other physicists say to understand your proposal for a T.O.E is highly unlikely. We all have our subject specialisations. I probably know a lot more about computing science than you will ever know about physics but such comparisons are fruitless and pointless.

There are so many people way more qualified and much more experienced than you who describe all sorts of photon emissions and absorption examples on websites like quora. I would need volume sized space here to paste them all, two quick examples below.

Allan Steinhardt
PhD,Author,"Radar in the Quantum Limit",Formerly DARPA's Chief Scientist,
First off, two photon absorption is pretty darn critical for cellular biology. An application of it was granted the most recent (2014) Nobel Prize. See STED microscopy for the technical details, and Page on nobelprize.org for official press release. Here is how it works and why it won a Nobel Prize. Two photon absorption involves striking an atom's electron with a one-two punch of photons fast enough that the electron can't emit the usual photon it would have emitted if just one photon struck it............

Viktor T. Toth
IT pro, part-time physicist
Information Technology Professional
Studied at Budapest University of Technology and Economics
Lives in Ottawa, ON
105.9M content views1.8M this month
Top Writer2018, 2017, 2016 and 2015
Published WriterHuffPost, Forbes, Apple News and 1 more

When the photon energy is less than what it takes to make the electron free, the electron indeed only absorbs photons at specific energies, allowing it to jump between energy levels.
But when a photon has more energy than it takes to free the electron altogether, the electron is not bound to specific energy levels. It can absorb any such photon, become free, and all the excess energy that it receives turns into kinetic energy for the electron.
Think of the energy levels as a finite set of (ever more closely spaced) distinct levels, followed by a continuum of levels.

A photon is an energy packet, not a billiard ball, of course, it can be absorbed. What's happening in photosynthesis if energy cant be absorbed? — universeness

It's a particle just as an electron. The electron is made if three massless particles. The difference between the massless photon and the massless sub is that the massless sub contains pure kinetic energy and the photon pure potential energy.

Oh I know enough about physics and I can understand what other physicists say to understand your proposal for a T.O.E is highly unlikely. We all have our subject specialisations. I — universeness

Which only goes to show you dont know much about it. I know enough about the brain. Computers dont interest me even one mm.

So. It's potential energy that's absorbed. Not the photon containing it. When delivered, it returns in the vacuum.

Of course, logically, a God is also not necessary — Philosophim

A god, better, lots of them, are logical necessary to provide final closure. If the final gap is closed, only gods offer reason. A logical conclusion. You can't argue gods away by logic.

Of course, logically, a God is also not necessary
— Philosophim

A god, better, lots of them, are logical necessary to provide final closure. If the final gap is closed, only gods offer reason. A logical conclusion. You can't argue gods away by logic. — Hillary

Hello Hillary. According to the logic I've presented, I haven't argued away the possibility of a God, but I have argued away their necessity. Take the premises below:

1. It is necessary that something is self-explained.
2. If something is self-explained, there are no prior rules that explain why it existed.
3. Because there are no rules that limit why or how a self-explained existence can be, one cannot put a limit on what could possibly be self-explained when one does not know the origin(s) of the universe.

A god would be one type of possible self-explained entity. But so is anything else. A spec of dust. An atom. A bang. All of these are possible. As such, a God is not necessary. I wrote a separate OP going into more detail here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12847/if-a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary-what-does-that-entail-for-the-universes-origins/p1

1.It is necessary that something is self-explained.
2. If something is self-explained, there are no prior rules that explain why it existed.
3. Because there are no rules that limit why or how a self-explained existence can be, one cannot put a limit on what could possibly be self-explained when one does not know the origin(s) of the universe. — Philosophim

It is not necessary something is self explained. The universe can't explain it's own existence. Gods, being eternally intelligent, don't need an explanation. Gods are the only reasonable reason for the universe's existence.

Oh I know enough about physics and I can understand what other physicists say to understand your proposal for a T.O.E is highly unlikely — universeness

The point is, you don't understand what my theory is about. And you can call in the physical infantery, the "hot-shots", but they dont have a true counter. And WTF means highly unlikely? More likely that they are right? Oooookaaaaay.... woowoooooooo... kedeng kedeng....woowoooo!!!

The past existed during the present; only a record of it exists now. The future does not exist; it is expected to become the present. Past and future are words without existence; they do not exist.

The past existed during the present; only a record of it exists now. The future does not exist; it is expected to become the present. Past and future are words without existence; they do not exist. — val p miranda

Good, so you agree with everyone :up:

...only a record of it exists now. — val p miranda

Only a record of what exists now?

The past existed...a record of it exists now. — val p miranda

Ahh, yes you are finally learning. Welcome to reality. Good job buddy :)

Oh I know enough about physics and I can understand what other physicists say to understand your proposal for a T.O.E is highly unlikely — universeness

How can you know if you dont understand my ToE. I have shown the basics, very carefully not to get banned, but the only counter offered was none or ban, or reference to what's the standard, which is perfectly circular. But I understand them. They have a career to care about and esteem to be worried about. Luckily there are exceptions. Fir example, Cosmas Zachos, writer of a book on QM in phasespace, simply says he simply doesnt know.

Reality is where I strive to reside. I'm pleased that you think I have returned

Past and future are words without existence; they do not exist. — val p miranda

This is too simplistic, reality is more nuanced than this quote suggests imo.
As I copied and pasted the text you typed in your past, I brought the textual representation of your thoughts into my present. Anyone also reading your original posting at any moment in their 'now,' effectively brings something from your past into their present. The same connection/refresh of past events are brought into anyone's present when they read a book/look at a photo/listens to a story etc.
There is an issue with such recordings or renditions of past events, as exemplified by god fables, in that the reader/listener/viewer is reliant on the truth of the recording or rendition of past events.

If I think something trivial and simple like I will make myself a coffee in 5 minutes from now, then I am predicting an event in my own future. I can absolutely make that prediction come true. So I can in some simple but accurate ways, predict many events in my own future. I can use a similar method to predict events in your future, from 'you will eat food tomorrow,' 'you will sleep within the next 24 hours' etc. These predictions could prove inaccurate but will be accurate in most cases.
Future, present and past events are more related/interconnected than you suggest imo.

1. It is necessary that something is self-explained.
2. If something is self-explained, there are no prior rules that explain why it existed.
3. Because there are no rules that limit why or how a self-explained existence can be, one cannot put a limit on what could possibly be self-explained when one does not know the origin(s) of the universe. — Philosophim

Your first premise is false because it should start with "IF" rather than "IT", that is, under assumption that something is self-explained rather than claim that something is self-explained.

We know nothing in the nature is self-explained, do you have anything that is self-explanatory?

The point is, you don't understand what my theory is about. And you can call in the physical infantery, the "hot-shots", but they dont have a true counter. And WTF means highly unlikely? More likely that they are right? Oooookaaaaay.... woowoooooooo... kedeng kedeng....woowoooo!!! — Hillary

I think there are only two significant points that remain between us on the issue of your physics, your rationale and your dalliances with polytheism.

You often express emotive outbursts such as the text-based sound effects you simulate above.
Many people do this to a lesser or greater degree than you do, including me. You however have very honestly declared yourself bipolar. I think this should be fully recognised and respected as a very honourable declaration but such text-based sound effects are going to leave some people, me included, with the question of 'is he having an episode.' I have cited Stephen Fry as someone who deals with the condition very well in my opinion even though he has had some very difficult times because of it.
I hope and I am sure you will turn bipolar highs into positive effects in your life, and you will ensure bipolar lows don't cause too much damage in your life. It's a matter for you to decide if bipolar highs/lows contribute to you getting banned from discussion forums and contribute to your dalliances with polytheism. Please don't assume that I am suggesting all polytheists are bipolar (sorry to all Hindus if I am giving that impression) or that the only reason you are polytheist is because you are bipolar. I am more referring to your more superfringe statements such as the dinosaurs had their own separate god as does every species that has ever lived and all these gods are eternal and continue their existence in heaven.

The final point I wish to make to you is regarding physics. Since I left Uni I have worked within my degree field. So my knowledge of Computing Science was greatly enhanced because I had daily experience of enhancement in the subject as it became my way of making a living.
You have not revealed your working experience in physics. Has your expertise been honed in physics due to your career path? Those two examples I gave of Victor T. Toth and Allan Steinhard earlier certainly have honed their skills in physics and folks from Roger Penrose to Alan Guth and the younger mob such as Brian Cox, certainly have as well. Have you?
I personally will always default to the credence of the physics posits of Penrose, Guth, Cox and folks like Toth and Steinhard over @Hillary even if Hillary gets some support for one of his notions about the Higgs mechanism from one or two qualified people on quora. Especially when one or two equally qualified people completely disagreed with his notion regarding the Higgs.

I don't think there is much more to be gained by either of us by exchanging with each other as much as we have in the past. I will respond to you a lot less in the future as we have very little common ground but I do thank you for the exchanges we have had. I am certainly not saying 'never again,' but our future exchanges will be much reduced on my part.

It is not necessary something is self explained. The universe can't explain it's own existence. Gods, being eternally intelligent, don't need an explanation. Gods are the only reasonable reason for the universe's existence. — Hillary

Your first premise is false because it should start with "IF" rather than "IT", that is, under assumption that something is self-explained rather than claim that something is self-explained.

We know nothing in the nature is self-explained, do you have anything that is self-explanatory? — SpaceDweller

I proved it was logically necessary here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary

I proved it was logically necessary here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary — Philosophim

How do posits like the multiverse or the Penrose bounce affect your view on the infinite regression and a necessary first cause? Does it not matter how many times, time is reset back to 0?
Is it only the 'first time' that time progressed from t=0 that a first cause is needed? and if so, does it matter how far back that was? Would this first cause still need to have a significance to our Universe other than as some original mindless spark that occurred at the start of an unknown number of t=o resets ago?

How do posits like the multiverse or the Penrose bounce affect your view on the infinite regression and a necessary first cause? Does it not matter how many times, time is reset back to 0? — universeness

No, not at all.

Is it only the 'first time' that time progressed from t=0 that a first cause is needed? and if so, does it matter how far back that was? — universeness

No.

Would this first cause still need to have a significance to our Universe other than as some original mindless spark that occurred at the start of an unknown number of t=o resets ago? — universeness

No.

One can expect the present to contnue.

Your link took me to p19 of your thread titled 'A first cause is logically necessary.
I take it that the proof you were referring to was in the OP of that thread (p1) and your XYZ statements regarding causality. This thread's OP ruminates on the 'something from nothing,' debate.
Laurence Kraus wrote a whole book on the issue, titled, 'A Universe from nothing.'
A appreciate the connection between the two threads. Something from nothing and first cause.
I am sure the 19 page dialogue on your thread dealt with the issues involved.
Your answer to my last question was no so I assume you are confirming that in your opinion, if there ever was a first cause, it may well have no significance at all, to our current Universe and therefore the theists are wasting their energy when the show deference to the god posit? Do you agree?

I would aslo like to ask, after your 19 page thread and the comments the contributors made,
did you have any doubts about the 'causality' route as being absolutely fundamental to the question of origin of the Universe?

Here is a counter view from quora:
Absolutely not; causality is a useful concept when we observe all the effects in existence and seek to find causes for all those effects. Existence itself is not an effect and does not have a prior cause. I find this condition of physical reality to be quite intriguing that existence as a whole is not an effect and has no cause, yet all the apparently separate things - objects and forces - are effects that have causes. It appears that it is our capacity to perceive that enables us to discern one thing from another which is responsible for this apparent dichotomy of causality / non-causality.

Wiki has very good detail and 'historicity' on causality at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
I don't know if such was already discussed ad nauseam in your thread but I thought,

Since causality is a subtle metaphysical notion, considerable intellectual effort, along with exhibition of evidence, is needed to establish knowledge of it in particular empirical circumstances. According to David Hume, the human mind is unable to perceive causal relations directly. On this ground, the scholar distinguished between the regularity view on causality and the counterfactual notion. According to the counterfactual view, X causes Y if and only if, without X, Y would not exist. Hume interpreted the latter as an ontological view, i.e., as a description of the nature of causality but, given the limitations of the human mind, advised using the former (stating, roughly, that X causes Y if and only if the two events are spatiotemporally conjoined, and X precedes Y) as an epistemic definition of causality. Having an epistemic concept of causality is needed to distinguish between causal and noncausal relations. The contemporary philosophical literature on causality can be divided into five big approaches to causality. These include the (mentioned above) regularity, probabilistic, counterfactual, mechanistic, and manipulationist views. The five approaches can be shown to be reductive, i.e., define causality in terms of relations of other types. According to this reading, they define causality in terms of, respectively, empirical regularities (constant conjunctions of events), changes in conditional probabilities, counterfactual conditions, mechanisms underlying causal relations, and invariance under intervention.

was worth including here for Hume's opinion alone that 'the human mind is unable to perceive causal relations directly,' when placed in the context of the rest of the text above about epistemology and causality. I tend to concur with the viewpoint that 'existence' does not require a cause.

One can expect the present to contnue — val p miranda

So does this not clash with:
Past and future are words without existence; they do not exist.
— val p miranda

are you just trying to relabel the future as a continuum of 'present?' Do you see such a distinction as having vital significance or it is a relatively insignificant distinction?
We exist on a linear timeline, our existence is linear. A 1D timeline is a single coordinate system, only x varies, no height and no thickness, so the only directions are forwards (future), position (present) and backwards (past). Are you not just suggesting that the line can also be envisaged as a 'totality of positions,' is that a significant distinction? If you think it is significant, then why?

The first uncaused cause was immaterial space. After that, every effect has a cause or causes. As for Hume, empirical issues can be highly probable, tantamount to certainty. For example: All men die, Socrates is a man, he will die. This is only probable because the major premise is bases on an induction. Kant praises Hume, but I was never a fan. Of course a cause need not repeat itself.

The first uncaused cause — val p miranda

What? The term uncaused cause makes no sense, it's like saying the nonexistent existent, just nonsense. I appreciate your comments regarding Hume and Kant and I have read some stuff about the PSR, like https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/
I appreciate the philosophical views put forward on this origin topic but I prefer the more scientific arguments.

I think 'causality,' has been dealt with most convincingly imo, by folks like Sean Carroll and theories like the Roger Penrose bounce and his 'hawking points' evidence from this Universe.
Sean's arguments point towards no need for a first cause and Roger pushes any first cause, way way back to the start of an oscillating Universe.
Also Laurence Krauss's book 'A Universe from nothing,' is another treatment of the topic I find quite compelling. For me, this is currently enough to completely refute such as the kalam cosmological argument and the god posit as a required first cause.

The term uncaused cause makes no sense, it's like saying the nonexistent existent — universeness

The latter is self-contradictory, but the former is not. It’s not nonsense to say that a cause is itself uncaused: it causes, but is not caused. However it is nonsense to say that something existing does not exist.

It’s not nonsense to say that a cause is itself uncaused: it causes, but is not caused. — Jamal

Give me an example to explain what you mean.
God is posited as an entity that can cause processes to happen but was not itself, created.
A quick google search describes the word cause as meaning "a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition"
Cause has 'intent' behind it, so to me, uncaused cause sounds like unintended intent??
Perhaps your example will enlighten me.

I am aware of the term:
As formulated by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica, the uncaused cause argument is stated as follows: "Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause. This leads to a regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God ."

But I think the logic applied by Aquinas here is a bad one and should not have been accepted as a way to 'sneak in' the god posit.

Well I'm not arguing in favour of uncaused causes, just pointing out that it's not self-contradictory in the way that "nonexistent existent" is.

But can you give me an example that demonstrates it's not a self-contradicting statement?

These are important issues when it comes to the theistic arguments which support the first cause god posit.

Sean Carrol makes the point that objects on frictionless surfaces moving at constant velocity do not need a cause to keep moving. Others counter with, but this is about a sustaining cause not an initial cause.

I realise, you are just discussing the term uncaused cause from the standpoint of logic and contradiction but I think it does fail in that aspect as well. Which rule in propositional logic validates uncaused cause?

I realise, you are just discussing the term uncaused cause from the standpoint of logic and contradiction but I think it does fail in that aspect as well. Which rule in propositional logic validates uncaused cause? — universeness

If you say God caused the physical universe, that would be an efficient cause. Then you would look at God as needing to be caused as well.

I think Aristotle solves the problem by making the physical world always existing and 'God' (Prime Mover) also uncaused and co-existing.

If you say God caused the physical universe, that would be an efficient cause — Jackson

Did you mean 'efficient' or 'sufficient.' I take it you meant sufficient and in that case, yes, it could be. Science has yet to and may never be able to disprove the god posit.

Then you would look at God as needing to be caused as well. — Jackson

Yes, unless you are willing to accept such (imo) very dubious (in the best case scenario) as uncaused cause for the specially pleaded case of god.

I think Aristotle solves the problem by making the physical world always existing and 'God' (Prime Mover) also uncaused and co-existing — Jackson

But surely, if god co-exists with the Universe then, as humans who ask questions, we must ask what gods function is in the same way we strive to understand how the Universe works.
Are you happy with any current description or evidence available that attempts to explain the role god played and now plays in this Universe?