The Argument From Non-Causality
Don McIntosh has taken on quantum mechanics in his recent article Why a Quantum-Mechanical Universe Still Requires a Cause. This article tries to answer the question posed in its title by refuting the validity of a supposed argument made by atheists (actually a straw man) that the universe is uncaused. And in doing so, Don commits a logical fallacy of his own.
Don's argument may be stated this way:
1. Atheists argue that the universe is uncaused.Let's examine this in more detail.
2. The atheist argument is not logically valid.
3. Therefore, the universe is not uncaused (and hence, the title of the article).
Don discusses the idea of "causality in science" without any real understanding of what that means. In general, physics doesn't make any use of a principle of causality. Instead, it describes things in terms of conformance with laws. Newtonian laws of motion don't say anything like "object A causes object B to move in a certain way". Instead, they describe how objects interact in keeping with conservation of momentum and other laws. The motion of every object is affected by mutual interaction between them, and there is no single thing that can be named as the cause of these interactions. Causality, as a principle employed in theistic arguments such as first-cause arguments, is not a scientifically valid concept. There is no such thing as a "chain of causality". In science, there are only physical laws that explain how things work.
And this idea extends to quantum mechanics, as well. You may hear people say that virtual particles come into existence without a cause, but a more proper scientific description would be that virtual particles come into existence in accordance with the laws of quantum mechanics, which are probabilistic. Those physical laws actually require the creation of virtual particles, without saying precisely where and when. So you may not be able to point to a specific event that triggers the creation of a virtual particle, but that's fine. Science has no need for a principle of causality. Everything happens in accordance with the laws of nature. And that's all that matters. Sorry, theists.
So Don, proceeds to formulate something that might be called a "virtual argument", based on his poor understanding of science. But he calls it the "argument from non-causality", and he states it this way:
1. Virtual particles come into existence uncaused.Don is careful to note that this is not the actual argument made by atheists, but it is just formulated from the logical implications of what atheists claim. Therefore, you can't call this a straw man. However, it IS a straw man by any reasonable definition of the term. It is Don's own contrived version of what he thinks atheists claim, which he then proceeds to tear down in order to make his own argument. If that's not a straw man, I don't know what is. And he is quite correct that this is not a valid argument. It does not logically follow that if some objects come into existence uncaused, then the universe must also come into existence uncaused. And this is not the argument that scientists make, by any stretch of the imagination. This contrived argument is not based on "the logical implications of the statements" he has heard. It is based on sheer ignorance of the actual science involved cosmological theories.
2. Virtual particles are physical objects.
3. Physical objects come into existence uncaused. (from 1 & 2)
4. The observable universe is a physical object.
5. The observable universe has come into existence uncaused. (from 3 & 4)
It's understandable to a degree that Don would see scientific theories in this way. After all, his own theistic theories are no better than the straw man he presents. They are not based on any laws except for the one law that theists refuse to violate: All theistic thinking and all theistic arguments follow from the fundamental assumption that God exists. Aside from that, anything goes. In theism, the laws of physics are meaningless, because God can do anything he pleases. Even logical arguments for the existence of God are ultimately based on circular reasoning. With that kind of thinking as the basis of his theistic beliefs, it is not surprising that Don sees scientific reasoning in the same way. But he's wrong. Scientific cosmological theories are actually based on established laws of nature.
The creation of the universe is a consequence of quantum mechanics, and is 100% consistent with all known laws of physics, as we understand those laws. Not only that, but those laws would entail multiple universes. This is not just a matter of atheists inventing a cosmology as a rejoinder to theism. Don makes a snarky comment based on his lack of understanding of science:
Clearly if we reserve the right to assert that some things just happen without explanation, then at that point we forfeit the claim that the natural universe is scientifically explicable. But of course the claim that God is not scientifically explicable is one of the most common reasons, if not the most common reason, that atheists cite for rejecting theism in the first place. Evidently some atheists are trying to have their science and eat it, too.Sorry, Don, but while God is not scientifically explicable, the universe is. Science endeavors to explain the universe in terms of natural laws that are justified by empirical observation. You endeavor to explain the universe in terms of one fundamental law: your (unjustified) assumption of God.
But let's get back to Don's argument. He basically says that because his straw man atheistic argument is not logically valid, then the universe must have a cause. As I said, I agree that the argument he presented is not logically valid. But let's just ignore for a moment the fact that it's not anything like the argument atheists make. Let's say that atheists actually do use this reasoning. What does that imply for Don's own argument? If argument A (the atheistic argument from non-causality) is invalid, does that imply that the conclusion of argument B (Don's argument, stated above) is true? No it doesn't. An invalid argument doesn't imply that its conclusion must be false. It only means that you can't determine the truth of the conclusion by virtue of that argument. There may be some other argument that is valid and that reaches the same conclusion. So Don's conclusion, that the universe must have a cause, does not follow from the argument that he presented, even if we grant that his major premise is true (which it isn't). This is called non-sequitur.
"Don is careful to note that this is not the actual argument made by atheists, but it is just formulated from the logical implications of what atheists claim. Therefore, you can't call this a straw man. However, it IS a straw man by any reasonable definition of the term. It is Don's own contrived version of what he thinks atheists claim, which he then proceeds to tear down in order to make his own argument. If that's not a straw man, I don't know what is."
ReplyDeleteSo you don't know what a straw man is, other than an argument that can't be called a straw man. Nice work.
I would refute the rest of your post if I thought it worth the time and trouble. Thankfully, I don't.
Don,
DeleteYou said in closing in the linked article "Evidently some atheists are trying to have their science and eat it, too."
I agree. The absurdity of argumentation by some atheists is perhaps most glaring with Lawrence Krauss, who has lowered himself to the level of woo monger.
But, we are not all in the woo business. Sean Carroll offers a more thoughtful view
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/04/28/a-universe-from-nothing/
One major problem with the god speculation is that it solves nothing, rather, merely defines something as being eternal which can create the universe. So, superficially, that seems to solve the first cause problem of the universe, but in fact it merely pushes the problem back a step to an unevidenced thing with magical powers.
I can just as well speculate that there is some super-duper unobtainium stuff that is eternal and makes universes pop into existence from time to time. Such speculations are of equal explanatory value as the god speculation, none at all.
The explanation we have evidence for is that stuff is eternal. All available evidence shows that stuff cannot be created or destroyed and stuff exists. Therefore by elementary logic stuff is eternal.
Unfortunately that explanation suffers from the defect of an infinite regression of a time sequence of events, which is irrational, Bertrand Russel notwithstanding.
The simple truth is that nobody has solved this ancient riddle and adding the god speculation only makes the riddle worse and has no actual explanatory value.
The absurdity of argumentation by some atheists is perhaps most glaring with Lawrence Krauss, who has lowered himself to the level of woo monger.
DeleteYou obviously don't understand Carroll's review. Read it again. Nowhere does he take issue with a single word that Krauss says, or any aspect of the physics involved. He says:
So modern physics has given us these two ideas, both of which are interesting, and both of which resonate with our informal notion of “coming into existence out of nothing” — one of which is time evolution from empty space (or not-even-space) into a universe bursting with stuff, and the other of which posits time as an approximate notion that comes to an end at some boundary in an abstract space of possibilities.
Carroll agrees with all this. Read his book The Big picture. He does acknowledge that there may be some question as to the definition of nothingness. What Carroll takes issue with is Krauss' failure to address the philosophical question of why there is something rather than nothing. Indeed, physics doesn't answer questions like that.
But your assertion that Krauss' cosmology is "woo" is just plain wrong.
"You obviously don't understand Carroll's review. Read it again. "
DeleteThat's funny. I said "Sean Carroll offers a more thoughtful view", not that he was trying to counter the physics Krauss refers to.
"What Carroll takes issue with is Krauss' failure to address the philosophical question of why there is something rather than nothing. Indeed, physics doesn't answer questions like that."
There is no reason in principle why physics would be barred from addressing this issue, hence the subtitle to the Krauss woo manifesto "Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing"
"But your assertion that Krauss' cosmology is "woo" is just plain wrong."
That is also funny. His book is one big equivocation. Woo is the nicest thing one could say about it. When he speaks he utters endless absurdities about different kinds of nothing, and various structures that he calls nothing. He also has a rather dull witted inability to differentiate between the mathematical symbol for infinity and an actual physical realization of an infinity.
His idiotic drivel is truly painful to listen to for a variety of reasons including the fact that it gives theists valid ammunition to point out how irrational and nonsensical atheists can be.
I think you don't know what you're talking about.
Delete"im-skepticalNovember 19, 2016 at 4:04 PM
DeleteI think you don't know what you're talking about."
Is that supposed to be some sort of reasoned counter argument?
How many sorts of zeros are there? We don't speak of different kinds of zero. That is one of the nice things about zero in that even if we cannot solve for each term in an expression if we can show that the expression equals zero we can get rid of the whole expression and simplify the problem without ever solving for those unknown terms.
But zero is a mathematical concept with no physical realization. One does not have zero oranges, because zero oranges is also zero apples and zero giraffes, and zero rocks, and zero nuclear bombs and zero of every sort of thing in the universe. I cannot have zero of exclusively one sort of thing, rather I have zero of all things I do not have at least 1 of, and I always have at least 1 of a number of things.
Nothing is no thing. No space, no time, no dimensions, no matter, no energy. Nothing, like a mathematical zero, comes in only 1 sort and has no physical realization.
To speak of different sorts of nothing, is nonsense on its face. To call space, or the multiverse, or a quantum soup, or anything else "nothing" is a preposterous equivocation which never should have been given the slightest legitimacy.
Krauss has been excoriated time and again, yet otherwise intelligent and skeptical atheists continue to listen and buy his woo for sale.
Here are just a couple examples
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-lawrence-krauss-a-physicist-or-just-a-bad-philosopher/
"He is presenting untested speculative theories of how things came into existence out of a pre-existing complex of entities, including variational principles, quantum field theory, specific symmetry groups, a bubbling vacuum, all the components of the standard model of particle physics, and so on. He does not explain in what way these entities could have pre-existed the coming into being of the universe, why they should have existed at all, or why they should have had the form they did. "
http://www.bethinking.org/is-there-a-creator/a-universe-from-someone-against-lawrence-krauss
"Krauss spends most of his book redefining ‘nothing’ in terms of increasingly incorporeal somethings (from ‘empty space’ to reified ‘laws of physics’), as if this justified the conclusion that literal nothingness could be the cause of the cosmos. That’s like arguing that since its possible to live on less and less food each day it must be possible to live on no food."
You're just quoting theists who think that God must have something to do with it, and complain that Krauss didn't address the philosophical issues to their satisfaction. Who cares? The physics is accepted within the scientific community, and Carroll agrees with it. Krauss never claimed to be a philosopher. Science addresses the things we can know about our world. Let the philosophers argue about what we can't know. That's not what Krauss is concerned about.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete{"John Horgan is an American science journalist best known for his 1996 book The End of Science. He has written for many publications, including National Geographic, Scientific American, The New York Times, Time, Newsweek, and IEEE Spectrum. His awards include two Science Journalism Awards from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Association of Science Writers Science-in-Society Award. His articles have been included in the 2005, 2006 and 2007 editions of The Best American Science and Nature Writing. Since 2010 he has written the "Cross-check" blog for ScientificAmerican.com.
DeleteHorgan graduated from the Columbia University School of Journalism in 1983. Between 1986 and 1997 he was a senior writer at Scientific American."}
{"Peter S. Williams (MA, MPhil) is Assistant Professor in Communication and Worldviews at Gimlekollen School of Journalism and Communication in Norway. He is author of many articles and several books, including 'C.S. Lewis vs the New Atheists' "}
Yea, let's take the word of a couple of hack journalists with axes to grind and their cherry picked quotations over the lifetime of study of an honored particle physicist at the top of his field presenting a "plausible hypothesis' backed up by math and observations as well as many of his peers.
You are conflating mathematical "nothing" with "physical nothing".
Not the same thing.
As Dr. Victor Stenger said "we don't know if a state of 'nothing' can exist. We've never seen a state of 'nothing'."
We also don't know that our universe started from 'nothing'.
I don't know what your qualifications are but your understanding seems pretty thin and based on authority (not legitimate authority) and personal prejudice.
im-skepticalNovember
Delete" The physics is accepted within the scientific community, "
There is no physics to show something from nothing. If you think there is then please do show me the proof for 0=1.
"The community" has absolutely no theory, experiment, or mathematics to show how or why nothing can turn into something. If you think there is such a thing you are simply engaging in a dream world of equivocation on the term "nothing" and have no actual understanding of that term.
"Let the philosophers argue about what we can't know. That's not what Krauss is concerned about."
That statement is belied by the very subtitle of his book! Krauss himself has made similar claims, apparently forgetting the subtitle of his own ode to equivocation, "Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing".
After the blatant nonsense of his equivocations have been pointed out time and again he and his defenders retreat to claims that Krauss is not interested in philosophy, apparently forgetting that the cover of his book asks one of the most ancient and profound philosophical questions ever considered!
Merrill
Delete"You are conflating mathematical "nothing" with "physical nothing".
Not the same thing."
Sorry Merrill, you are the one who is confused. There is only 1 sort of nothing, which is no thing, the total absence of something, not anything at all.
"As Dr. Victor Stenger said "we don't know if a state of 'nothing' can exist. We've never seen a state of 'nothing'.""
Hence the profound riddle of the question Krauss asks and fails to answer, "Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing". The failure to answer is no shame on anybody, since this question has proved insoluble for millennia and remains unsolved to this day.
The shame is on Krauss for using a cheap linguistic slight of hand to claim he has solved this ancient riddle. I am continually amazed at the number of otherwise intelligent and skeptical people who have actually fallen for his carney act.
"We also don't know that our universe started from 'nothing'."
Indeed, our big bang is quite possibly not "the universe" in the flexible ever expanding definition of the word meaning all that exists. Our big bang might have been caused by some other existence, but that immediately calls for the question of what caused the existence of the entity that caused our big bang? And so on in a potentially infinite regression of causes.
The riddle has long been stated and never solved, that somehow a real thing could be eternal, or that somehow nothing could give rise to something.
The truly disgusting aspect of the Krauss carney act is that he asks "Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing", purports to answer this question that no human being has yet answered, and fizzles in the end, predictably, with mere definitional trickery. Worse, a whole population of otherwise intelligent and skeptical atheists have fallen for this charlatan thus bringing disrepute on atheism itself, a disrepute we can ill afford.
"I don't know what your qualifications are but your understanding seems pretty thin and based on authority (not legitimate authority) and personal prejudice."
This is not a difficult situation to understand and requires no authority one way or the other. I don't need a meteorologist to know which way the wind blows, and neither do you. I will not be tarred by the fact that theists agree with me nor is rationality a popularity contest or to be decided by authority.
Use your reasoning skills. Nothing means no thing. There can be only one sort of nothing. Krauss himself asks the philosophical question on the cover of his book! "Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing". By his own words he juxtaposes "something" with "nothing".
Indeed, if there is some thing then there is not no thing. If there is no thing then there is not some thing.
Do you really need a PhD to explain that to you?
If you have a field you have some thing. If you have space you have some thing. If you have any properties at all you have some thing. Honestly, what is so difficult for the folks here to grasp this simple use of language and reason?
When Krauss asks on the cover of his book, no less, "Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing" he is asking the very "why" question he later purports to disdain. He is asking for the explanation of existence itself.
Why is there any existence as opposed to absolutely nothing at all? Krauss asks it himself! "Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing". Yet his "solution" is a mere carnival trick, a cheap parlor magic act, the weasel words of a huckster, in the end utterly failing to answer the question he asked and claims to have answered.
"Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing"
The simple truth is that nobody knows.
There is no physics to show something from nothing. If you think there is then please do show me the proof for 0=1.
Delete- Why don't you just read the book?
you are simply engaging in a dream world of equivocation on the term "nothing" and have no actual understanding of that term.
- And what makes you the authority on this matter? There is considerable disagreement over exactly what "nothing" is. Why should I accept your opinion?
That statement is belied by the very subtitle of his book! ... the cover of his book asks one of the most ancient and profound philosophical questions ever considered!
- He answered the question "Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing" from his own perspective as an empiricist and scientist, if not from a philosophical one. "Because nothing is unstable."
"...Sorry Merrill, you are the one who is confused. There is only 1 sort of nothing, which is no thing, the total absence of something, not anything at all."
DeleteLOL
Which have never seen a state of and don't even know if it could exist.
{"As Dr. Victor Stenger said "we don't know if a state of 'nothing' can exist. We've never seen a state of 'nothing'."}
"Hence the profound riddle of the question Krauss asks and fails to answer, "Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing". The failure to answer is no shame on anybody, since this question has proved insoluble for millennia and remains unsolved to this day."
LOL
We haven't had modern physics for millennia.You're playing =fast and loose.
The question is not original with Krauss. He's answering those theists who pose it-and there a lot of them. That you don't like the way he answers it is irrelevant.
"The shame is on Krauss for using a cheap linguistic slight of hand to claim he has solved this ancient riddle. I am continually amazed at the number of otherwise intelligent and skeptical people who have actually fallen for his carney act."
And that's where you lose me.
Citation needed.
Where did he say he had unequivocally solved this question?
{"We also don't know that our universe started from 'nothing'."}
"Indeed, our big bang is quite possibly not "the universe" in the flexible ever expanding definition of the word meaning all that exists. Our big bang might have been caused by some other existence, but that immediately calls for the question of what caused the existence of the entity that caused our big bang? And so on in a potentially infinite regression of causes."
Uh huh.
Why do you assume an "entity" caused our big bang?
How do you define the term?
"The riddle has long been stated and never solved, that somehow a real thing could be eternal, or that somehow nothing could give rise to something."
The problem, as i see it, is that you have defined "nothing" in a way that only theists agree with.
"The truly disgusting aspect of the Krauss carney act....."
Did Krauss step on your toes and fail to apologize?
This smells like a personal vendetta.
"......is that he asks "Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing", purports to answer this question that no human being has yet answered...."
In your humble opinion?
"..... and fizzles in the end....."
Again, in your humble opinion?
People with far more education in the matter than you seem to have agree with his assessment, his "plausible hypothesis", while only a small handful of qualified physicist and a crap load of ignorant theologists oppose it.
And if has called it more than that, again, I need a citation.
"....predictably, with mere definitional trickery. "
(continued)
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletecontinued for star dusty
Delete"....predictably, with mere definitional trickery. "
Really?
So you personally know for a fact that his math and observations are not factual and his conclusions are erroneous? In spite of peer review agreement?
"Worse, a whole population of otherwise intelligent and skeptical atheists have fallen for this charlatan thus bringing disrepute on atheism itself, a disrepute we can ill afford."
And now you sound like a tone troll.
You seriously worry about atheism as a movement?
Sorry, I'm very skeptical.
"This is not a difficult situation to understand and requires no authority one way or the other."
LOL
You quoted some lame authorities who quote mined some other "authorities" who seem either agenda driven or theologically compromised.
You ranted on about how "profound" and insoluble the question is and now suddenly it's " not a difficult situation to understand and requires no authority "?
Really?
" I don't need a meteorologist to know which way the wind blows, and neither do you. I will not be tarred by the fact that theists agree with me nor is rationality a popularity contest or to be decided by authority."
You haven't made a rational case here and neither have your "authorities".
Sorry.
"Use your reasoning skills."
Uhm, thanks for reminding me to do that.
Usually when people use that line on me what follows next is some incredible bullshit they want me to swallow.
"Nothing means no thing."
Does it?
That is true in mathematics but we really don't know if it is true in physics or cosmology.
Sorry.
"There can be only one sort of nothing."
Uhm, no, sorry, I can't agree with that.
" Krauss himself asks the philosophical question on the cover of his book! "Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing". By his own words he juxtaposes "something" with "nothing".
You're repeating yourself.
"Indeed, if there is some thing then there is not no thing. If there is no thing then there is not some thing."
And now who is engaging in semantics?
"Do you really need a PhD to explain that to you?"
Yup.
Preferably someone with a PhD in particle physics.
"If you have a field you have some thing. If you have space you have some thing. If you have any properties at all you have some thing. Honestly, what is so difficult for the folks here to grasp this simple use of language and reason?"
So, where would "nothing" exist then?
How do you know it has ever existed?
Why is Dr. Stenger wrong when he says a state of nothing would be unstable and could not continue?
Shall we ask someone with a PhD in journalism or theology
I think not.
"When Krauss asks on the cover of his book, no less, "Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing" he is asking the very "why" question he later purports to disdain. He is asking for the explanation of existence itself. "
Hmmmmm....
To say the question is meaningless or ill formed isn't really engaging in a "why question".
"Why is there any existence as opposed to absolutely nothing at all? Krauss asks it himself! "Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing". Yet his "solution" is a mere carnival trick, a cheap parlor magic act, the weasel words of a huckster, in the end utterly failing to answer the question he asked and claims to have answered."
You're repeating yourself again.
You're also lapsing into personal vituperation again.
{"Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing"}
"The simple truth is that nobody knows...."
And you know that.....how?
"im-skepticalNovember
DeleteThere is no physics to show something from nothing. If you think there is then please do show me the proof for 0=1.
- Why don't you just read the book?"
Hilarious!!! Zero can be shown to equal one if only I read a book!!!!
"- And what makes you the authority on this matter?"
Argument by authority is a fallacy. I am not surprised you ask me to support a fallacious process.
"There is considerable disagreement over exactly what "nothing" is."
More hilarity. Nothing is no thing. It is the total absence of anything at all. If you think that is somehow controversial then you know nothing about nothing, to borrow from the master of nothingness bullshit himself, the charlatan Krauss :-)
"Because nothing is unstable."
Ha Ha Ha!!!! I mean, really, what do you have so invested in this bullshit?
Unstable nothing? How idiotic. If there is nothing then there is nothing to be stable, unstable, or anything else. There is nothing!!! How fucking retarded can this conversation get???
Shorter Stardusty Psyche:
Delete'Who needs a damned physics education-I can read the definitions in the dictionary'.
Hilarious indeed.
You're still conflating mathematics and physics.
Come back when you figure out they are not the same thing.
"....How fucking retarded can this conversation get???"
Pretty retarded if you aren't even going to read Stenger or Krauss.
Hilarious!!! Zero can be shown to equal one if only I read a book!!!!
Delete- But perhaps you will know what he's talking about.
Argument by authority is a fallacy.
- It isn't argument from authority. It's a matter of understanding what the argument is about.
If you think that is somehow controversial then you know nothing about nothing
- There is philosophical nothing, and there is reality. Philosophical nothingness is a fantasy. It is impossible, if the world exists. Reality is what we're talking about here. And that's what you can't get through your head. In reality stuff comes from not stuff. In reality, 1 + -1 = 0.
"...Argument by authority is a fallacy. I am not surprised you ask me to support a fallacious process....."}
DeleteThat's so precious coming from the guy who just argued from the "authority" of a journalist quoting the "authority" of a theologian and a scientist with an axe to grind.
Stardusty's problem is that he doesn't recognize any kind of "nothing" other than his own philosophical concept. He may be an atheist (though I have my doubts), but he is stuck on certain inflexible dogmatic beliefs. Here's some advice: if science and philosophy come into conflict, stick with the science.
DeleteDefinition of 'straw man', from Wikipedia:
ReplyDeleteA straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.
Your argument fits that definition perfectly.
Does it really matter whether it's a strawman though? The argument 'for' causality fails no matter because it's simply impossible for us humans to determine whether the physical universe around us always existed or not. Period. Therefore, any argument trying to argue for the existence of some non-physical god, who would have created the physical universe, is invalid if it uses a premise that contradicts this unknown fact about the physical universe. In other words, the mere fact that it's possible for the universe to have always existed, or not, makes it impossible for us, at least today, to argue either way. And the only rational conclusion is thus disbelief of such god concept, while acknowledging that it's a possibility.
ReplyDeleteI agree. The point of my final paragraph was that whether or not it was a straw man, Don's argument still isn't valid.
DeleteBut let's just ignore for a moment the fact that it's not anything like the argument atheists make. Let's say that atheists actually do use this reasoning. What does that imply for Don's own argument?