Rumraket wrote:Well he could have picked a better example, he was just trying to distinguish between causes. For example, the sun is the continous cause of the path of the orbits of the planets around it. But this is different from noncontinous causes, like the firing of a gun is the cause of the motion of the bullet.

The obvious response to this is surely a simple "is it?".

It isn't clear that this conception is valid - physically both processes involve an application of a force over a finite period (i.e. non-infinitessimal and non-infinite in duration), and if either force were removed prematurely it would change the future behaviour of the effect, from the point at which the effect would have traveled the intervening distance.

It's one of many dubious claims, the same applies to the train as a source of locomotion - the effect of an engine on the cars is not "simultaneous".

I always find these clips of slinkies falling one of the best ways to visualise the point that high-school physics and its flat spacetime with instantaneous transmission of effects is flawed. It takes time for the bottom of the slinky to find out about the fact it's "no longer supported".

Physics is a game of approximations, the difference between zero duration and almost-zero is an acceptable error, but when translated into logic or rhetoric "zero" or "not zero" becomes the difference between "right" and "wrong". This premise most certainly alone invalidates a claim that the premises (taken as a product of the probabilities of each) are more probably right than wrong.

Thommo wrote:
I always find these clips of slinkies falling one of the best ways to visualise the point that high-school physics and its flat spacetime with instantaneous transmission of effects is flawed. It takes time for the bottom of the slinky to find out about the fact it's "no longer supported".

And you can always get involved with the quantum-weirdness folks, who worry that entanglement might mean that information is getting transmitted at superluminal velocities. When you ask them for the information, they can't find it, and start talking about virtual photons broadcasting themselves backwards in time and waving around Shannon entropy. Woo-hoo. Once you've dealt with that kind of crap, spotting the holes in Mick's stuff is child's play. But he writes so much, and consequently, there are so many holes.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Thommo wrote:
I always find these clips of slinkies falling one of the best ways to visualise the point that high-school physics and its flat spacetime with instantaneous transmission of effects is flawed. It takes time for the bottom of the slinky to find out about the fact it's "no longer supported".

And you can always get involved with the quantum-weirdness folks, who worry that entanglement might mean that information is getting transmitted at superluminal velocities. When you ask them for the information, they can't find it, and start talking about virtual photons broadcasting themselves backwards in time and waving around Shannon entropy.

I'm certainly open to the possibility that my understanding is flawed, but this kind of objection is incredibly weak - if there's more to learn (and certain effects can radiate through space superluminally) that doesn't mean that we simply return to the previous simplified position of a flat spacetime. These aren't mutually exhaustive possibilities, which is from a logical perspective the only point that we need to make to debunk an argument proceeding from one of them. After all, it's not up to a debunker to have access to The Truth™, only to explain how the proponent has failed to show they have The Truth™.

Thommo wrote:
I'm certainly open to the possibility that my understanding is flawed, but this kind of objection is incredibly weak - if there's more to learn (and certain effects can radiate through space superluminally) that doesn't mean that we simply return to the previous simplified position of a flat spacetime. These aren't mutually exhaustive possibilities, which is from a logical perspective the only point that we need to make to debunk an argument proceeding from one of them. After all, it's not up to a debunker to have access to The Truth™, only to explain how the proponent has failed to show they have The Truth™.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, but it sounds a bit like saying that scientific models get closer and closer to the truth. But you don't and can't know that. They get closer and closer to generalising all the observations we can make. Anyone may speculate about all the observations we cannot make. The reason that we cannot return to the previous simplified position of a flat spacetime has nothing to do with slinkies, but with observations of something other than and far removed from slinkies. Increasing scientific knowledge is not an argument against a very general deity, but only against very specific ones.

Mick's opening post is not much more than rejecting the posit of infinite regress to answer a non-scientific question non-scientifically. Mick holds no currency in discussing scientific matters scientifically. Lobawad knows all about false dichotomies, and responds appropriately.

I agree in broad terms with a lot of what you've written, but since it seems what I was saying wasn't clear, I'll seek to clarify slightly:

Cito di Pense wrote:I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, but it sounds a bit like saying that scientific models get closer and closer to the truth. But you don't and can't know that. They get closer and closer to generalising all the observations we can make.

Depending what you mean by "truth" and "know" I may or may not believe that, but I made no reference to either in the text and meant none, or indeed to anything scientific per se. As for whether scientific models get closer and closer to generalising all the observations we can make - we don't and can't know that either.

Cito di Pense wrote:Anyone may speculate about all the observations we cannot make. The reason that we cannot return to the previous simplified position of a flat spacetime has nothing to do with slinkies, but with observations of something other than and far removed from slinkies. Increasing scientific knowledge is not an argument against a very general deity, but only against very specific ones.

The slinky is an illustration of another option - that we can't actually show "simultaneous causation" from common experience. It's not a metaphor for all of science, merely a demonstration of the gap between logical categorisations and "shit happening".

Cito di Pense wrote:Mick's opening post is not much more than rejecting the posit of infinite regress to answer a non-scientific question non-scientifically. Mick holds no currency in discussing scientific matters scientifically. Lobawad knows all about false dichotomies, and responds appropriately.

He didn't respond at all that I can see, he made an opening statement that didn't address what Mick wrote. I make no claims as to whether that is good or bad, though at least it maintains a certain neutrality of structure in the debate as obviously that was the position Mick was in as well.

Thommo wrote:we can't actually show "simultaneous causation" from common experience. It's not a metaphor for all of science, merely a demonstration of the gap between logical categorisations and "shit happening".

Common experience is suitable for biological agents in an ecosystem. It's no good for doing advanced physics or apprehending the nature of God. The entire construct of classical reason is all about blustering your way to an apprehension of the divine. With skyhooks.

Thommo wrote:He didn't respond at all that I can see, he made an opening statement that didn't address what Mick wrote.

So, you assert that a debate is a conversation. You might as well assert that enemy snipers should not hide behind trees and walls whilst shooting at their enemies. When you address theologians, indirection is really the only approach; this is just what lobawad is sophisticated enough to undertake. If you try to address theology head-on, you end up writing nonsense yourself. Of course, one may address the moral dicta of theology head on by saying "you pulled that one out of your arse and need muscle to enforce it".

Thommo wrote:

Rumraket wrote:Well he could have picked a better example, he was just trying to distinguish between causes. For example, the sun is the continous cause of the path of the orbits of the planets around it. But this is different from noncontinous causes, like the firing of a gun is the cause of the motion of the bullet.

The obvious response to this is surely a simple "is it?".

It isn't clear that this conception is valid - physically both processes involve an application of a force over a finite period (i.e. non-infinitessimal and non-infinite in duration), and if either force were removed prematurely it would change the future behaviour of the effect, from the point at which the effect would have traveled the intervening distance.

I don't really see the problem here.

If you removed the sun, you wouldn't have the same centre of mass, even if it would take time for the planets to "feel" the effect, it would reach them eventually and they'd go flying in each of their directions (simplified, some might still stay together depending on how far apart they are and so on). But the principle is still valid, if you want the planets to stay in their respective orbits, you need something to continously apply a force to them. This centre of mass (of a certain size) of the solar system would be a "continous cause" of the orbits of the planets. (Not to be confused with the fact that the planets are moving at all, I'm talking about the path they take).

This is in contrast to the bullet example where a force is only applied once for a short duration. After the bullet has left the barrel, the energy from the exploding gunpowder is no longer applying any force to the bullet, yet the bullet keeps moving. The gun could go out of existence when the bullet has left the barrel and it would not affect the bullet. So in this respect it's a noncontinous cause.

Rumraket wrote:This is in contrast to the bullet example where a force is only applied once for a short duration. After the bullet has left the barrel, the energy from the exploding gunpowder is no longer applying any force to the bullet, yet the bullet keeps moving. The gun could go out of existence when the bullet has left the barrel and it would not affect the bullet. So in this respect it's a noncontinous cause.

Are you really going to skip over accounting for the total angular momentum of the solar system? This is another way of noting that not all the mass of the solar system is concentrated at its center, only most of it.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Rumraket wrote:This is in contrast to the bullet example where a force is only applied once for a short duration. After the bullet has left the barrel, the energy from the exploding gunpowder is no longer applying any force to the bullet, yet the bullet keeps moving. The gun could go out of existence when the bullet has left the barrel and it would not affect the bullet. So in this respect it's a noncontinous cause.

Are you really going to skip over accounting for the total angular momentum of the solar system?

Yes.

Cito di Pense wrote:This is another way of noting that all the mass of the solar system is not concentrated at its center.

It's not important with respect to the point I'm making that the centre of mass of the solar system is not at the center of the sun and is indeed not the sun itself. The paths of the planets are tied to the existence and location of the sun, even if they're also influenced by each other and everything else with mass in the entire universe. Nevertheless, they have the path they have primarily because of the mass and proximity of the sun. Taking the sun out of the picture will alter their path (even if the effect is delayed).

Rumraket wrote:I don't really see the problem here.

If you removed the sun, you wouldn't have the same centre of mass, even if it would take time for the planets to "feel" the effect, it would reach them eventually and they'd go flying in each of their directions (simplified, some might still stay together depending on how far apart they are and so on). But the principle is still valid, if you want the planets to stay in their respective orbits, you need something to continously apply a force to them.

If you want the planets to undergo a force on a continuing basis, then there must indeed be a continuous force. Now, let's contrast this with a bullet. If you want a bullet to undergo a force on a continuing basis, then there must be a continuous force. When a bullet is fired there is a very short continuous process, then it gets pinged off in a particular direction with some velocity. Solar systems are the same, eventually they collapse and planets may be pinged off (or not, much like bullets - guns can jam and misfire) depending on the state of the system when the decay occurs. It takes a bit longer, but there need not be a conceptual difference.

The point is that a perceived contrast is drawn where there isn't one - the actual basis for the contrast here was "what we want to happen".

Rumraket wrote:This centre of mass (of a certain size) of the solar system would be a "continous cause" of the orbits of the planets. (Not to be confused with the fact that the planets are moving at all, I'm talking about the path they take).

Both are continuous. One is "continuing" although in the case of a now defunct solar system, just as in the case of a bullet fired in the past, that need not be the case.

Rumraket wrote:This is in contrast to the bullet example where a force is only applied once for a short duration. After the bullet has left the barrel, the energy from the exploding gunpowder is no longer applying any force to the bullet, yet the bullet keeps moving.

But not along the path it would if the force was still present. This is exactly the same as the planet case.

Rumraket wrote:The gun could go out of existence when the bullet has left the barrel and it would not affect the bullet. So in this respect it's a noncontinous cause.

As could the sun.

Please bear in mind that the response "is it?" was to the assertion that "this is different from noncontinous causes" - that these are fundamentally different types of cause. It is not clear they are, merely that one discusses an action completed in the past and the other an ongoing one, but both are continuous (they have an extent/exist over time).

Rumraket wrote:The paths of the planets are tied to the existence and location of the sun, even if they're also influenced by each other and everything else with mass in the entire universe. Nevertheless, they have the path they have primarily because of the mass and proximity of the sun. Taking the sun out of the picture will alter their path (even if the effect is delayed).

In one frame of reference, the paths of the planets are (among other things) tied to tiny original inhomogeneities in the condensing pre-solar nebula. In another, the paths of the planets are tied to the fact that a wandering star has not disrupted the approximately (but not perfectly) two-body problem of a planetary orbit in a system with a single primary. One point of view is a general point about the contraction of stellar nebulae, and another is essentially about the convenience of having only a single primary. Even in our system, the long-term stability of the many-body system is not carved in, er, stone. In the point of view I'm giving, the planets have their orbits because that is where they accreted. It's just not a given that there should have been a single primary, and you know that. Saying that planets and their primary (or primaries) have approximately elliptical orbits around some center of mass is not something I am arguing with. You're noting that the dynamics of our solar system can be described by a set of approximately independent two-body systems, and that is a good approximation.

Thommo wrote:

Rumraket wrote:I don't really see the problem here.

If you removed the sun, you wouldn't have the same centre of mass, even if it would take time for the planets to "feel" the effect, it would reach them eventually and they'd go flying in each of their directions (simplified, some might still stay together depending on how far apart they are and so on). But the principle is still valid, if you want the planets to stay in their respective orbits, you need something to continously apply a force to them.

If you want the planets to undergo a force on a continuing basis, then there must indeed be a continuous force. Now, let's contrast this with a bullet. If you want a bullet to undergo a force on a continuing basis, then there must be a continuous force. When a bullet is fired there is a very short continuous process, then it gets pinged off in a particular direction with some velocity. Solar systems are the same, eventually they collapse and planets may be pinged off (or not, much like bullets - guns can jam and misfire) depending on the state of the system when the decay occurs. It takes a bit longer, but there need not be a conceptual difference.

The point is that a perceived contrast is drawn where there isn't one - the actual basis for the contrast here was "what we want to happen".

Rumraket wrote:This centre of mass (of a certain size) of the solar system would be a "continous cause" of the orbits of the planets. (Not to be confused with the fact that the planets are moving at all, I'm talking about the path they take).

Both are continuous. One is "continuing" although in the case of a now defunct solar system, just as in the case of a bullet fired in the past, that need not be the case.

Rumraket wrote:This is in contrast to the bullet example where a force is only applied once for a short duration. After the bullet has left the barrel, the energy from the exploding gunpowder is no longer applying any force to the bullet, yet the bullet keeps moving.

But not along the path it would if the force was still present. This is exactly the same as the planet case.

Rumraket wrote:The gun could go out of existence wh en the bullet has left the barrel and it would not affect the bullet. So in this respect it's a noncontinous cause.

As could the sun.

Please bear in mind that the response "is it?" was to the assertion that "this is different from noncontinous causes" - that these are fundamentally different types of cause. It is not clear they are, merely that one discusses an action completed in the past and the other an ongoing one, but both are continuous (they have an extent/exist over time).

I'm trying to distinguish the path of the planets (not that they are moving) from the fact that the bullet fired from the gun is moving.

One requires continous presence of a certain centre of mass, the other requires firing a gun once. The fact that firing a gun has a nonzero duration is immaterial with respect to the point. Once fired, the bullet keeps moving. You don't need to keep applying force to the bullet to keep it moving (you could fire it in empty space).

But the orbits of the planets (still not the fact that they are moving at all) is what requires a continous cause, a centre of mass of a particular size and location.

Rumraket wrote:You don't need to keep applying force to the bullet to keep it moving (you could fire it in empty space).

Thank you for reviewing Newton's first law of motion with us. What's your point, here, exactly?

Rumraket wrote:I'm trying to distinguish the path of the planets (not that they are moving) from the fact that the bullet fired from the gun is moving.

Again, it isn't clear what distinction you are making. Both are indeed moving, and both will take different paths if ongoing forces are applied.

Rumraket wrote:One requires continous presence of a certain centre of mass, the other requires firing a gun once. The fact that firing a gun has a nonzero duration is immaterial with respect to the point. Once fired, the bullet keeps moving. You don't need to keep applying force to the bullet to keep it moving (you could fire it in empty space).

Nor do you need to keep applying the force of the sun for the planets to move. What changes in both cases is the specific path.

Rumraket wrote:But the orbits of the planets (still not the fact that they are moving at all) is what requires a continous cause, a centre of mass of a particular size and location.

Right, certain paths are only possible while an ongoing force is applied. This, again, also applies to the bullet. Without a force it won't accelerate. Now, the acceleration of a bullet is along the direction of motion rather than perpendicular to it, but there the difference ends - it doesn't seem to be fundamental and it's not between "continous" and "non-continuous" cause.

I really think we can and should question this assumption of different categories for these causes, it is not at all obvious the distinction is real.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Rumraket wrote:You don't need to keep applying force to the bullet to keep it moving (you could fire it in empty space).

Thank you for reviewing Newton's first law of motion with us. What's your point, here, exactly?

specific path vs motion.

In a vacuum, a nonlinear path requires contiued application of force, a linear path does not.

Thommo wrote:

Rumraket wrote:I'm trying to distinguish the path of the planets (not that they are moving) from the fact that the bullet fired from the gun is moving.

Again, it isn't clear what distinction you are making. Both are indeed moving, and both will take different paths if ongoing forces are applied.

Rumraket wrote:One requires continous presence of a certain centre of mass, the other requires firing a gun once. The fact that firing a gun has a nonzero duration is immaterial with respect to the point. Once fired, the bullet keeps moving. You don't need to keep applying force to the bullet to keep it moving (you could fire it in empty space).

Nor do you need to keep applying the force of the sun for the planets to move. What changes in both cases is the specific path.

Rumraket wrote:But the orbits of the planets (still not the fact that they are moving at all) is what requires a continous cause, a centre of mass of a particular size and location.

Right, certain paths are only possible while an ongoing force is applied. This, again, also applies to the bullet. Without a force it won't accelerate. Now, the acceleration of a bullet is along the direction of motion rather than perpendicular to it, but there the difference ends - it doesn't seem to be fundamental and it's not between "continous" and "non-continuous" cause.

I really think we can and should question this assumption of different categories for these causes, it is not at all obvious the distinction is real.

It is obvious to me that the distinction is real.

Rumraket wrote:It is obvious to me that the distinction is real.

It is obvious to me that god exists.

Thommo wrote:

Rumraket wrote:It is obvious to me that the distinction is real.

It is obvious to me that god exists.

Well, at least I don't see anything particularly objectionable about the principle in the context of this debate. There's nothing about the universe itself that leads me to think it requires a continous cause to sustain it.

Rumraket wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Rumraket wrote:It is obvious to me that the distinction is real.

It is obvious to me that god exists.

Well, at least I don't see anything particularly objectionable about the principle in the context of this debate. There's nothing about the universe itself that leads me to think it requires a continous cause to sustain it.

Certainly, I agree that there's no reason to think that the universe requires a continuous sustaining cause, but that doesn't mean that there is a fundamental difference between the firing of a bullet and the orbits of a planet. Let me try putting it another way, and anyone who wants to can point out to me this obvious difference in type of cause and where it fits in.

-At the centre of our solar system is an exploding ball of gas, called the Sun. The sun exists for a period of about 11-12 billion years. During this time the sun exerts a continuous (gravitational) force on the Earth, causing the Earth to continuously accelerate towards the sun. If during that period the sun were to suddenly wink out of existence (i.e. stop exerting the force) the Earth would stop accelerating and would instead travel in a straight line with a fixed speed, subject to no other forces being applied to it.

-In the firing chamber of a gun in the process of being discharged is an exploding ball of gas. This explosion exists for a tiny fraction of a second. During this time the explosion exerts a continuous force on a bullet, causing the bullet to continuously accelerate away from the explosion. If during that period the explosion were to suddenly wink out of existence (i.e. stop exerting the force) the bullet would stop accelerating and would instead travel in a straight line with a fixed speed, subject to no other forces being applied to it.

Rumraket wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Rumraket wrote:It is obvious to me that the distinction is real.

It is obvious to me that god exists.

Well, at least I don't see anything particularly objectionable about the principle in the context of this debate. There's nothing about the universe itself that leads me to think it requires a continous cause to sustain it.

But saying that 'a continuous cause sustains existence' uses the word 'sustain' and the word 'existence' together in such a way that neither word obviously signifies anything that the other does not. It's puddle thinking that doesn't realise the comedy of saying the shape of the puddle is sustained by the shape of the depression it's in. What fucking bullshit. It's thought and manipulation of language at such a trivial level that being persuaded of anything by it just denotes the desire to believe.