Proving scientific theories

[Simiangrunt]

Hello, I was thinking about scientific theorizing and seem to have stumbled onto a brain fart. Scientific theories are not supposed to be provable since they are explanations for a given set of observations. At best, they can only seem to be highly probable. However, I was thinking about the atomic theory (that matter is composed of atoms) and the theory about the heliocentric structure of our solar system. The latter seems to have been proven. The former, should in principle, be proven if we are able to go down to the sub-atomic level and view atoms and their reactions to one another (perhaps this has already been done). There seems to be a mistake somewhere. One is that the atomic theory and the heliocentric theory aren't theories at all (at least in the way I have formulated them). Or, some theories are provable (ie make it certain), provided they are formulated in such a way that some observation can prove it. Thanks

Simian

[travc]

Short answer, no.

Now, we can get to the point that so many theories are intertwined and interdependent, and all fit observed reality so well, that it is basically impossible to imagine them not being "fact". However, God could have created the entire universe, including my memories, yesterday, and we have no way of proving that day before yesterday existed. Even worse, everything could be a huge construct of my imagination, and I could just be imagining you ;)

Oh, and for stuff based on probabilites... once a probability gets to the order of one in the number of fundamental particles in the universe, that equals 0. Just a bit of an aside.

[Sven]

Hello, I was thinking about scientific theorizing and seem to have stumbled onto a brain fart. Scientific theories are not supposed to be provable since they are explanations for a given set of observations. At best, they can only seem to be highly probable. However, I was thinking about the atomic theory (that matter is composed of atoms) and the theory about the heliocentric structure of our solar system. The latter seems to have been proven. The former, should in principle, be proven if we are able to go down to the sub-atomic level and view atoms and their reactions to one another (perhaps this has already been done).
Viewing them has indeed been done. Just take a look at (with) the Scanning Tunneling Microscope (http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/STM/stm.html).

The point with proving theories is: We can only find evidence for (against) them (they are inductive). But we can never be sure that we'll never find evidence against them, that there isn't a better theory which explains the evidence (including the new one, contradicting the old theory) better.

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

AFAIK, currently there is no good way of formally expressing the verisimilitude of a theory. Popper tried to form one, but it was found deficient:

[ I]n the 1970's a series of papers published by researchers such as Miller, Tichý, and Grünbaum in particular revealed fundamental defects in Popper's formal definitions of verisimilitude... With respect to theories which are false... Popper's conditions for comparing levels of verisimilitude, whether in quantitative and qualitative terms, can never be met.

Karl Popper (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper), Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy

[Bob K]

Challenge

If you seriously think that there are no proven natural relationships between/among objects/events comprised of matter/energy, then I invite you to take this challenge:

Premise: There is a natural causal relationship between/among human skulls and stoneworks such that when human skulls attempt to occupy or pass through the space/time co-ordinates of stoneworks the humans which occupy the skulls either die or otherwise report serious pain emanating from their skulls.

Premise: If (P) a human skull is forced through the space/time co-ordinates of a stonework, then (Q) the human occupant of the skull will (A) die or (B) will report severe pain.
Premise: (P) Run headfirst through the space/time co-ordinates of (A) The Bunker hill Monument, Boston, MA; (B) The Washington Monument, Washington, DC; (C) North Brookings Hall of Washington University, St. louis, MO.
Conclusion: (Q) (A) You will die; or (B) You will report severe pain.

Philosophers have not yet accepted this challenge.

Why?

Because they know there is a verifiable/falsifiable/verified natural causal relationship between/among human skulls and stoneworks and that (P) if they run headfirst through the space/time co-ordinates of the proposed stoneworks then (Q) (A) they will kill themselves or (B) they will experience severe pain (and perhaps disability).

Thus, there are in fact verifiable/falsifiable/verified natural causal relationships which exist between/among objects/events comprised of matter/energy which cannot be denied and which have not ever been disconfirmed, which will not be disconfirmed by evidence existing in this current and therefore present year, 2005, and which not be disconfirmed by evidence in the future.

[Sven]

Philosophers have not yet accepted this challenge.

Why?

Because they know there is a verifiable/falsifiable/verified natural causal relationship between/among human skulls and stoneworks

No. Because they know that 100% (proven) and close to 100% are not the same.
According to QM, it's indeed possible to run through walls - it's only that the probability for this is that close to zero that no human with a right mind would risk his life on it.

Welcome to strawman land.

Thus, there are in fact verifiable/falsifiable/verified natural causal relationships which exist between/among objects/events comprised of matter/energy which cannot be denied and which have not ever been disconfirmed
So what? That's still not the same as "proven".

which will not be disconfirmed by evidence existing in this current and therefore present year, 2005, and which not be disconfirmed by evidence in the future.
This is of course just an empty assertion.

[squozebrain]

AFAIK, currently there is no good way of formally expressing the verisimilitude of a theory. Popper tried to form one, but it was found deficient

I'm a little confused by the philosophical discourse on "truthlikeness," because there seems to be a lot of reference to actual truth. This must frustrate the establishment of good criteria for judging perceived or probable truth. Popper's notion of "verisimilitude," for example, compares theories (sentence sets) which are deductively closed. Is there (yet) anything in the practice of science that can be honestly called "deductively closed"?

Question to someone who might know: have Bayesian belief networks made much headway among philosophers considering truth theories and epistemology? I've always had the feeling that probability calculations are the best we can ever do. In science, this means we might find ourselves arguing between one theory with .995 probability, and another theory with .997. What to do?

[Majestyk]

If you seriously think that there are no proven natural relationships between/among objects/events comprised of matter/energy, then I invite you to take this challenge: Like anything else, the subject under discussion must be defined. Since, the nature of the term Theory, holds several divergent definitions in our language, we should include the appropriate definition in the discussion.

from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
In sciences, a theory is a model or framework for understanding. In physics, the term theory generally is taken to mean mathematical framework derived from a small set of basic principles capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. An example would be "electromagnetic theory", which is usually taken to be synonymous with classical electromagnetism, the specific results of which can be derived from Maxwell's equations. But, while we all like to pat each other on the back and wallow in wonder of how clever we are, we must remember this: from Talk Origins
The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation .... So, the key thing to remember, is that nothing is proven. It is just more or less probable. Hence, an explanation that appears to be probable, is accepted until, it is shown to be improbable.

That's what science is all about, challenging established theories by finding their flaws thru honest, disciplined, and repeatable methods. This can result in the theory being either refined or disproved. In either case, nothing is to be accepted without question.

[B_Sharp]

However, I was thinking about the atomic theory (that matter is composed of atoms) and the theory about the heliocentric structure of our solar system. The latter seems to have been proven. The former, should in principle, be proven if we are able to go down to the sub-atomic level and view atoms and their reactions to one another (perhaps this has already been done).Simian, There is a much much simpler reason explaining your dilemma why some science theories are more factual than others. This does highlight my philosophy that all sciences are different. But I will wait this one out and see what others dredge up first. :)

[Yggdrasill]

Premise: If (P) a human skull is forced through the space/time co-ordinates of a stonework, then (Q) the human occupant of the skull will (A) die or (B) will report severe pain.
Premise: (P) Run headfirst through the space/time co-ordinates of (A) The Bunker hill Monument, Boston, MA; (B) The Washington Monument, Washington, DC; (C) North Brookings Hall of Washington University, St. louis, MO.
Conclusion: (Q) (A) You will die; or (B) You will report severe pain.

Philosophers have not yet accepted this challenge.Your challenge is irrelevant, it's the same as:

Premise: If (P) you buy a lottery ticket, then (Q) you will lose.
Premise: (P) Buy a lottery ticket.
Conclusion: (Q) You will lose.

I believe there are other outcomes than losing, but you won't get me to buy a lottery ticket, as I believe the chances of other outcomes to be very small. So using your "challenge" as evidence is nonsensical.Because they know there is a verifiable/falsifiable/verified natural causal relationship between/among human skulls and stoneworks and that (P) if they run headfirst through the space/time co-ordinates of the proposed stoneworks then (Q) (A) they will kill themselves or (B) they will experience severe pain (and perhaps disability).Last time I looked, you weren't in a position to tell me what I know.

[Bob K]

Like anything else, the subject under discussion must be defined. Since, the nature of the term Theory, holds several divergent definitions in our language, we should include the appropriate definition in the discussion.

But, while we all like to pat each other on the back and wallow in wonder of how clever we are, we must remember this: So, the key thing to remember, is that nothing is proven. It is just more or less probable. Hence, an explanation that appears to be probable, is accepted until, it is shown to be improbable.

That's what science is all about, challenging established theories by finding their flaws thru honest, disciplined, and repeatable methods. This can result in the theory being either refined or disproved. In either case, nothing is to be accepted without question.

Are you willing to take The Challenge?

[Bob K]

Philosophers have not yet accepted this challenge.

Why?

Because they know there is a verifiable/falsifiable/verified natural causal relationship between/among human skulls and stoneworks

No. Because they know that 100% (proven) and close to 100% are not the same.

No. Because they know ... etc.

According to QM, it's indeed possible to run through walls - it's only that the probability for this is that close to zero that no human with a right mind would risk his life on it.

Does your quote mean you would not take The Challenge?

Thus, there are in fact verifiable/falsifiable/verified natural causal relationships which exist between/among objects/events comprised of matter/energy which cannot be denied and which have not ever been disconfirmed ...

So what? That's still not the same as "proven".

Wrong.

... which will not be disconfirmed by evidence existing in this current and therefore present year, 2005, and which not be disconfirmed by evidence in the future.

This is of course just an empty assertion.

Then take The Challenge!!!

[Bob K]

Premise: If (P) a human skull is forced through the space/time co-ordinates of a stonework, then (Q) the human occupant of the skull will (A) die or (B) will report severe pain.
Premise: (P) Run headfirst through the space/time co-ordinates of (A) The Bunker hill Monument, Boston, MA; (B) The Washington Monument, Washington, DC; (C) North Brookings Hall of Washington University, St. louis, MO.
Conclusion: (Q) (A) You will die; or (B) You will report severe pain.

Philosophers have not yet accepted this challenge.

Your challenge is irrelevant, it's the same as:

Premise: If (P) you buy a lottery ticket, then (Q) you will lose.
Premise: (P) Buy a lottery ticket.
Conclusion: (Q) You will lose.

I believe there are other outcomes than losing, but you won't get me to buy a lottery ticket, as I believe the chances of other outcomes to be very small. So using your "challenge" as evidence is nonsensical.

If your If P, Then Q logical argument were to effectively parallel mine, then you would be essentially asserting that it is possible that some human skulls would survive running headfirst through stoneworks, which has never been observed, and by knowledge of human skulls and stoneworks, will never happen.

However, we know from observation that some people actually do win the lottery--otherwise people would never buy lottery tickets, so, again, considering the fact that we have never observed heads running headfirst into stoneworks surviving without negative physical consequences your attempt to parallel my logical argument does not work.

Because they know there is a verifiable/falsifiable/verified natural causal relationship between/among human skulls and stoneworks and that (P) if they run headfirst through the space/time co-ordinates of the proposed stoneworks then (Q) (A) they will kill themselves or (B) they will experience severe pain (and perhaps disability).

Last time I looked, you weren't in a position to tell me what I know.

You can believe anything you want, but you will be judged on what you think you know and why you think you know it.

If you do not know there is a natural relationship between human skulls and stoneworks which describes the negative physical consequences to human skulls if they are run headfirst through the stoneworks then I invite you to take The Challenge to run your head headfirst through the proposed stoneworks.

Tell all your friends and relatives. They all most likely will want to witness your denial of the obvious.

[squozebrain]

Bob K:

Perhaps you will be satisfied if we speak of two different varieties of "proof." For the first type, we'll use the lower-case proof to mean relationships which have been demonstrated with such high probability that we would suspect fraud if offered a counter-example.

For the second type, we'll use the upper-case Proof to mean statements which follow from strictly deductive reasoning. Mathematical theorems are Proven, but when applied as physical theories they can only be proven.

It was pointed out by David Hume that causal relationships are underdetermined by observation. Suppose you repeat an experiment N times, and each time Y follows from X. You can construct a sound theory that X causes Y, and most scientists would agree that this relationship is proven if N is sufficiently large. But it is still logically possible that the (N+1)th experiment will yield a different result. The physical proof is therefore less solid than a deductive Proof.

As someone has already pointed out, even quantum mechanics allows people to pass through walls in principle, with probability greater than zero. There is no scientific theory with more/better experimental confirmation than quantum mechanics, and quantum theory throws a little uncertainty (however small) into everything.

[Yggdrasill]

If your If P, Then Q logical argument were to effectively parallel mine, then you would be essentially asserting that it is possible that some human skulls would survive running headfirst through stoneworks, which has never been observed, and by knowledge of human skulls and stoneworks, will never happen.As far as you know, it hasn't happened yet, it is entirely possible that it will happen in the future, and it's entirely possible that it has already happened, but it wasn't recorded. You don't have any knowledge of human skulls and stoneworks, because you don't have any knowledge at all, and before you ask me how I know that, I'll tell you that I don't, but I'm assuming that you are not omniscient. Only an omniscient entity would know everything relevant to the situation, particularly the things humanity hasn't descovered yet.

However, we know from observation that some people actually do win the lottery--otherwise people would never buy lottery tickets, so, again, considering the fact that we have never observed heads running headfirst into stoneworks surviving without negative physical consequences your attempt to parallel my logical argument does not work.The fact that some people have won the lottery doesn't mean the analogy is faulty, it's still a tiny possibility up against an overwhelming possibility, but I can modify the analogy. Instead of a lottery that has been won before, there's a new lottery with odds of a hundred billion to one, where one ticket costs a hundred thousand dollars; you wouldn't get me to play, even though I thought there was a possibility of winning. The majority of people would think of the lottery as impossible to win, even if it were possible to win.

Before you say "other lotteries have been won, so it's reasonable to assume that the new lottery can be won", people used to think that it was impossible
for humans to fly, very much like your claims that it is impossible to run through rock, the current lotteries which have been won are comparable to the impossibility of human flight, and the new lottery is comparable to the impossibility of running through rock.

[squozebrain]

Concerning Bob K's challenge and Yggdrasil's reaction to it, I feel that there are two observations that might be of interest. First, your challenge to philosophers is not new. The field of epistemology, now thousands of years old, is primarily concerned with answering skeptics. Challenges such as yours have also been repeated for thousands of years, and take the general form, "If you know/believe nothing, then why do/don't you do XYZ?"

My second observation is that, for thousands of years, there have never ceased to be skeptics of various degrees. They always have some pretty good answers to the challenges. A lot of smart, well-educated people decide to become hard-core skeptics after studying epistemology. When you really try to define and explain knowledge, you quickly discover that it is difficult to avoid circularity, subjectivity or metaphysical appeals (i.e., there are many theories in which you can know something, but it is impossible to know whether you know it).

Epistemology is so difficult that skeptics are always in a pretty safe logical position. It is even reasonable to be skeptical of logical deductions, because they rely on human perceptions of correct inference, which could be flawed.

[Lafcadio]

Bob K, I will take your challange (and probably repeating but hopefully synthetizing some things said above)

I say that your argument is unsound. For your premises to be true you have to check that "For any P, Q happens" which of course you can't do (see the previous message of Yggdrasill about omni attributes).
The funny part (as Sven remarked it) is that within our knowledge, it may actually happen that a skull will successfully defeat your hypothesis (i.e. pass through a stonework) due to that little chance of a zillionth given by quantum world's premises.

To continue the ideas from the post right above to mine, I say, that it's all a matter of goal. I doubt our knowledge's goal is to be 100% safe. We can live with uncertainities all over :)

[Bob K]

It was pointed out by David Hume that causal relationships are underdetermined by observation. Suppose you repeat an experiment N times, and each time Y follows from X. You can construct a sound theory that X causes Y, and most scientists would agree that this relationship is proven if N is sufficiently large. But it is still logically possible that the (N+1)th experiment will yield a different result. The physical proof is therefore less solid than a deductive Proof.

As someone has already pointed out, even quantum mechanics allows people to pass through walls in principle, with probability greater than zero. There is no scientific theory with more/better experimental confirmation than quantum mechanics, and quantum theory throws a little uncertainty (however small) into everything.

Philosophers who deny that natural causal relationships could exist which will always exist and never allow any possibility of a contrary causal result are wrong.

Inre an If P, Then Q, logical argument, the P functions as a condition or a set of conditions and the Q functions as a consequence.

If P, Then Q = If P/Condition(s), Then Q/Consequence(s).

Thus, under condition(s) P, in which specific P = specific organisms/objects/events comprised of matter/energy who/which function as causes, those organisms/objects/events who/which are the P/conditions will always cause Q--the organism(s)/object(s)/event(s) who/which is (are) the consequence(s).

When P is precisely specified, then there is no possibility except for Q.

If P should appear to occur but not cause Q, then we know an intervening variable has affected the expected result, and we have to track it down, and we can include it in further specifications of P, but the fact remains that under precise occurrences of P as previously specified [without the intervening variable], Q is the only causal possibility.

When human skulls are known/observed to have the properties specifiable under the P/conditions, and stoneworks are known/observed to have the properties specifiable under the P/conditions, and the natural causal relationship between human skulls and stoneworks is known/observed to be that when human skulls are run headfirst through the space/time co-ordinates of stoneworks serious injuries or death is the result, then If P/Condition(s), Then Q/Consequence(s) is the only logical and physical possibility.

The QM HUP/Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle appears to invalidate causality, but causality is nevertheless present at QM scalar levels.

The QM causality is a subject for another thread.

[Bob K]

If your If P, Then Q logical argument were to effectively parallel mine, then you would be essentially asserting that it is possible that some human skulls would survive running headfirst through stoneworks, which has never been observed, and by knowledge of human skulls and stoneworks, will never happen.

As far as you know, it hasn't happened yet, it is entirely possible that it will happen in the future, and it's entirely possible that it has already happened, but it wasn't recorded. You don't have any knowledge of human skulls and stoneworks, because you don't have any knowledge at all, and before you ask me how I know that, I'll tell you that I don't, but I'm assuming that you are not omniscient. Only an omniscient entity would know everything relevant to the situation, particularly the things humanity hasn't descovered yet.

As stated in the post to S, in an If P/Condition(s), Then Q/Consequence(s) logical argument, when the P/Condition(s) is (are) precisely specified, there can be only one consequence/set of consequences. If expected consequences do not occur, then there is an intervening variable which is the cause and must be identified, and, depending on the circumstances, and what is to be accomplished--goals/intents certainly important in physics/chemistry/medicine/engineering/etc., that intervening variable either has to be eliminated or incorporated in future specifications of P/Condition(s) for a revision of the original If P, Then Q logical argument.

However, we know from observation that some people actually do win the lottery--otherwise people would never buy lottery tickets, so, again, considering the fact that we have never observed heads running headfirst into stoneworks surviving without negative physical consequences your attempt to parallel my logical argument does not work.

The fact that some people have won the lottery doesn't mean the analogy is faulty, it's still a tiny possibility up against an overwhelming possibility, but I can modify the analogy. Instead of a lottery that has been won before, there's a new lottery with odds of a hundred billion to one, where one ticket costs a hundred thousand dollars; you wouldn't get me to play, even though I thought there was a possibility of winning. The majority of people would think of the lottery as impossible to win, even if it were possible to win.

Note that you are now changing the original P/Condition(s) in your previous If P/Condition(s), Then Q/Consequence(s) logical argument.

If P/Conditions = Lottery was rigged and an informant gave you the upcoming winning numbers, Then Q/Consequences = You could win at least a share of the prize money, what is the possibility that you might invest in a lottery ticket?

Thus, when the P/Conditions are precisely specified and there are no intervening variables, then the Q/Consequence is a guaranteed result.

Before you say "other lotteries have been won, so it's reasonable to assume that the new lottery can be won", people used to think that it was impossible for humans to fly, very much like your claims that it is impossible to run through rock, the current lotteries which have been won are comparable to the impossibility of human flight, and the new lottery is comparable to the impossibility of running through rock.

If the If P, Then Q logical argument is presented as If P = Humans are not fitted with special flying machines, then Q those humans cannot fly, then we have a specification of a P/condition which eliminates the intervening variables of those machines which do in fact enable human to fly. Thus, naked humans cannot and do not fly.

[Bob K]

Bob K, I will take your challange (and probably repeating but hopefully synthetizing some things said above)

I say that your argument is unsound. For your premises to be true you have to check that "For any P, Q happens" which of course you can't do (see the previous message of Yggdrasill about omni attributes).

The funny part (as Sven remarked it) is that within our knowledge, it may actually happen that a skull will successfully defeat your hypothesis (i.e. pass through a stonework) due to that little chance of a zillionth given by quantum world's premises.

To continue the ideas from the post right above to mine, I say, that it's all a matter of goal. I doubt our knowledge's goal is to be 100% safe. We can live with uncertainities all over :)

When the P/Condition(s) of an If P/Condition(s), then Q/Consequence(s) logical argument are specified precisely, then the Q/Consequence is the only possible result.

If Q/Consequence(s) does not (do not) occur as a result of the P/Condition(s), then there is an intervening variable, or a bunch of 'em, which have to be identified and either eliminated or incorporated into the P/Conditions who/which cause the Q/Consequence(s).

[Anglican]

You can prove things deductively within a scientific theory, however Scentific theories are arrived at inductively. There is certainly no scienitifc principle that can be deemed to be rpoved in science in general as that is an impossibilty.

[Yggdrasill]

As stated in the post to S, in an If P/Condition(s), Then Q/Consequence(s) logical argument, when the P/Condition(s) is (are) precisely specified, there can be only one consequence/set of consequences. If expected consequences do not occur, then there is an intervening variable which is the cause and must be identified, and, depending on the circumstances, and what is to be accomplished--goals/intents certainly important in physics/chemistry/medicine/engineering/etc., that intervening variable either has to be eliminated or incorporated in future specifications of P/Condition(s) for a revision of the original If P, Then Q logical argument.So, you accept the possibility that there might be unknown variables you don't know of?

If so, you haven't proven that it's impossible to run through rock. Actually, you haven't proven anything, as there is always the potential that unknown variables will interfere, and change the outcome.

If the If P, Then Q logical argument is presented as If P = Humans are not fitted with special flying machines, then Q those humans cannot fly, then we have a specification of a P/condition which eliminates the intervening variables of those machines which do in fact enable human to fly. Thus, naked humans cannot and do not fly.I'm fairly sure that at some point in the future, if humanity doesn't go extinct in the next few million years, it will be possible to genetically engineer humans to be able to fly without special machines, and without looking radically different.

[Bob K]

You can prove things deductively within a scientific theory, however Scentific theories are arrived at inductively. There is certainly no scienitifc principle that can be deemed to be proved in science in general as that is an impossibilty.

When physical phenomena are observed and specific causal properties/characteristics are hypothesized and later confirmed by additional observations, then, when the hypothesis is recast as an If P/Condition(s), Then Q/Consequence(s) logical argument, which is also a prediction of causality, and the P/Condition(s) is (are) precisely specified, the scientific principle is 100% valid.

If observations reveal a non-Q/Consequence, then there is an intervening variable which must be discovered/identified and either eliminated or otherwise incorporated into the P/Condition(s).

With no/zero intervening variables, then, when the P/Condition(s) is (are) observed, then the Q/Consequence(s) will be observed.

[squozebrain]

Philosophers who deny that natural causal relationships could exist which will always exist and never allow any possibility of a contrary causal result are wrong.


Well, I guess that's it then. Case closed. Show's over.

Humean skepticism does not deny the existence of natural causal relationships. It only questions the degree to which those relationships can be known to an observer.


Inre an If P, Then Q, logical argument, the P functions as a condition or a set of conditions and the Q functions as a consequence.


"If P, Then Q" is not a logical argument. It is an assertion. An argument presumes a valid specification of P and a valid theory liking P with Q.


Thus, under condition(s) P, in which specific P = specific organisms/objects/events comprised of matter/energy who/which function as causes, those organisms/objects/events who/which are the P/conditions will always cause Q--the organism(s)/object(s)/event(s) who/which is (are) the consequence(s).


You seem to be saying that you are a determinist. Fine. That has nothing to do with what can be known to us observers.


When P is precisely specified, then there is no possibility except for Q.


You mean when P is correctly and precisely specified, and Q is precisely specified. We have no truly precise specifications in science. There is always a little error in every measurement, and a little imprecision in every device, and a little uncertainty in every observation.


If P should appear to occur but not cause Q, then we know an intervening variable has affected the expected result,


The "intervening variables" are what skepticism is all about.


and we have to track it down,


We have to assume that we can track it down. Why should we think we'll be able to track everything down? Even in mathematics we know that there are unprovable truths. There are propositions for which we will never find a counterexample, but which are impossible to Prove.


The QM HUP/Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle appears to invalidate causality, but causality is nevertheless present at QM scalar levels.


No, it doesn't invalidate causality. It limits observability. QM "scalar levels" are really the whole universe. There are plenty of quantum phenomena which occur at large scales (e.g. quanta with very long wavelenths).


The QM causality is a subject for another thread.

No, it directly applies to this discussion, in that it creates limits on what can be observed about physical systems, and the degree to which anything can be known to an observer.

[squozebrain]

When physical phenomena are observed and specific causal properties/characteristics are hypothesized and later confirmed by additional observations, then, when the hypothesis is recast as an If P/Condition(s), Then Q/Consequence(s) logical argument, which is also a prediction of causality, and the P/Condition(s) is (are) precisely specified, the scientific principle is 100% valid.

I would guess that you don't have a lot of experience performing scientific experiments. There are hundreds of things that can go wrong in even the simplest experiments, resulting in misleadingly positive results or misleadingly negative results.

Most experiments don't have "yes/no" outcomes. They have measured results which are compared against theories. Any such experiment always has a cumulative error which is not zero, no matter how many trials you run. There is no such thing as "precise" specification. Instead, we say that a result is "precise within an error tolerance e, with confidence (probability) p." In general, a higher confidence requires a larger error tolerance.

[Schneibster]

Scientific theories are not supposed to be provable since they are explanations for a given set of observations. At best, they can only seem to be highly probable. This is an accurate summation of the ideas underlying the scientific method. You have, however, missed a very important philosophical underpinning. It must be philosophical, because it is impossible to prove: the assertion that what you sense is real. That assumption (many people would say it is a postulate) is incapable of proof. It must be accepted (or not) a priori.

However, I was thinking about the atomic theory (that matter is composed of atoms) and the theory about the heliocentric structure of our solar system. The latter seems to have been proven. Hee hee, not necessarily.

First, if by "heliocentric theory" you mean the theory that everything revolves around the sun, it has not and never can be.
a)"Everything" does not revolve around the sun. Only the things in our solar system do.
b)Even if we eliminate everything outside the solar system, what actually happens is that everything in the solar system including the sun revolves around a common center. That that center happens to be somewhere inside the sun means nothing; the sun also revolves around it.

Second, it is possible using GRT to show that it is perfectly valid to consider the center of the earth to be the center of the universe, which is moving around it. A complete and consistent mathematical model can be made in principle to show this.

Of course, if you are speaking specifically of the fact that the simplest mathematics would describe the center of revolution of all the objects in the solar system as being somewhere inside the sun, near its center, then of course you are correct- but is convenient mathematics any way to assert the nature of reality?

Heh.

The former, should in principle, be proven if we are able to go down to the sub-atomic level and view atoms and their reactions to one another (perhaps this has already been done). As a matter of fact, yes it has. We have even done experiments in which a single ion was suspended in the middle of a small space, and excited so as to be visible to the naked human eye by virtue of its emission of photons. Not only that but X-ray crystallography has shown us the precise positions of atoms linked together into a lattice.

There seems to be a mistake somewhere. One is that the atomic theory and the heliocentric theory aren't theories at all (at least in the way I have formulated them). Or, some theories are provable (ie make it certain), provided they are formulated in such a way that some observation can prove it. ThanksNo, they are all still just theories, subject to revision upon obtaining contradicting data.

[Anglican]

When physical phenomena are observed and specific causal properties/characteristics are hypothesized and later confirmed by additional observations, then, when the hypothesis is recast as an If P/Condition(s), Then Q/Consequence(s) logical argument, which is also a prediction of causality, and the P/Condition(s) is (are) precisely specified, the scientific principle is 100% valid.

If observations reveal a non-Q/Consequence, then there is an intervening variable which must be discovered/identified and either eliminated or otherwise incorporated into the P/Condition(s).

With no/zero intervening variables, then, when the P/Condition(s) is (are) observed, then the Q/Consequence(s) will be observed.

Apart from the fact that all experiments contain error, in general it is impossible to test all conceivable predictions of a theory thus we can never we can never say that a theory thta matches all the current evidnece (though diverges from the currnetly held theory on as yet untested predictions) is wrong as in all cases it is trivial to formulate such an alternative, but ad hoc theory.

[Lafcadio]

When the P/Condition(s) of an If P/Condition(s), then Q/Consequence(s) logical argument are specified precisely, then the Q/Consequence is the only possible result. I disagree. You have to prove that Q is the only possible result. Stating "if P then Q" bears a burden of proof you haven't taken. What is for me, your challanger, to disprove?


If Q/Consequence(s) does not (do not) occur as a result of the P/Condition(s), then there is an intervening variable, or a bunch of 'em, which have to be identified and either eliminated or incorporated into the P/Conditions who/which cause the Q/Consequence(s).
If Q is not a result of P maybe you got it all wrong from the start :Cheeky:
On the other hand, what do you think you'll solve by embedding all "hidden variables" you discover in the same old P and Q? Just pospone the issue. There always can be a possibility for your so long tested and continously enriching P->Q not to work and I see no way to overcome that.

[Bob K]

Philosophers who deny that natural causal relationships could exist which will always exist and never allow any possibility of a contrary causal result are wrong.

Well, I guess that's it then. Case closed. Show's over.

It should be.

Human skepticism does not deny the existence of natural causal relationships. It only questions the degree to which those relationships can be known to an observer.

Fine.

Wonderful.

Now answer the begged question: What is the degree to which natural relationships can be known to an observer?

And then answer this begged question: How can an observer know the degree to which he can know natural relationships?

Inre an If P, Then Q, logical argument, the P functions as a condition or a set of conditions and the Q functions as a consequence.

"If P, Then Q" is not a logical argument. It is an assertion. An argument presumes a valid specification of P and a valid theory liking P with Q.

Are you serious?

The If P, Then Q sentence IS a logical argument.

Basic introductions to philosophy identify/specify an If P, Then Q sentence to be one form of a logical argument.

[See Introduction To Philosophy by Peter McInerney, Harper-Collins, 1992, pp. 5-6.]

Thus, under condition(s) P, in which specific P = specific organisms/objects/events comprised of matter/energy who/which function as causes, those organisms/objects/events who/which are the P/conditions will always cause Q--the organism(s)/object(s)/event(s) who/which is (are) the consequence(s).

You seem to be saying that you are a determinist. Fine. That has nothing to do with what can be known to us observers.

Then answer the begged question: What can known to us observers?

Then answer this begged question: How do us observers know what can/cannot be known to us observers?

When P is precisely specified, then there is no possibility except for Q.

You mean when P is correctly and precisely specified, and Q is precisely specified. We have no truly precise specifications in science. There is always a little error in every measurement, and a little imprecision in every device, and a little uncertainty in every observation.

When P is correctly and precisely specified, then Q is the only possibility.

If you get rid of the philosophical mantras that clog your brain and keep it from functioning properly and then do some critical original thinking then you will intuit that the above statement is in fact a statement of fact--a description of reality.

IF the P/Conditions are A+B+C and are observed to be causal inre the Q/Consequence X, as in A+B+C -> X, meaning each case of A+B+C leads to/causes X, then for each and every case in which P/Conditions = A+B+C the only possibility is the Q/Consequence X.

If X does not occur/if nX occurs, the obvious question is: Why?

Research into the P/Conditions will reveal either A or B or C is missing or another variable, D, or E, or F, or ..., etc., is present and therefore affecting the Q/Consequence, nX.

Whether or not us observers are able to determine/discover specific/precise additional P/Conditions is initially irrelevant to the fact that nX has revealed the presence of either missing or additional P/Conditions.

Once the nX Q/Consequence reveals (A) one of the P/Conditions is missing or (B) additional P/Conditions are affecting/causing nX, then we know that we must begin the process of discovering/determining if (A) is causing nX--theoretically easy to determine because where A, B, C were previously observable P/Conditions then observance should reveal which is missing--or if (B) is causing nX.

Until an effort is made to observe directly or indirectly by their influence on observable organisms/objects/events comprised of matter/energy additional P/Conditions, we may not know/determine/discover if or not we are capable of knowing if or not we are capable of discovering/determining/knowing what are the additional P/Conditions which have caused nX.

Restated: A negative result, Q/Consequence = nX, reveals complications/problems with the P/Condition(s) of an If P/Condition(s), Then Q/Consequence(s) logical argument.

If P should appear to occur but not cause Q, then we know an intervening variable has affected the expected result,

[quote=S]The "intervening variables" are what skepticism is all about.

Newsflash: Discovering/determining/learning what are the intervening variables that screw up If P/Condition(s), Then Q/Consequence(s) logical arguments is/are what science and philosophical inquiry are all about.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, ...

When all P/Conditions are known inre an If P/Condition(s), then Q/Consequence(s) logical argument, then, when the P/Condition(s) occur(s), the only possibility is the Q/Consequence(s).

The logic in all this is valid and true.

If you do not agree that the logic is valid and true, then you only reveal that you do not understand the logic or otherwise have some mental problems--severe emotional attachments to philosophical mantras--which keep you from admitting the logic is valid and true.

You have already demonstrated a lack of knowledge that an If P/Condition(s), Then Q/Consequence(s) sentence/statement is in fact a logical argument.

and we have to track it down,

We have to assume that we can track it down. Why should we think we'll be able to track everything down? Even in mathematics we know that there are unprovable truths. There are propositions for which we will never find a counterexample, but which are impossible to Prove.

Why should we think we will not be able to track down intervening variables?

A negative Q/Consequence, nX, reveals its cause to be an intervening or otherwise missing P/Condition in the P/Condition(s) section of an If P/Condition(s), Then Q/Consequence(s) logical argument.

In physics, the law of inertia and its corollaries reveal that a change of an inertial state [speed and/or direction, a.k.a. rest v motion] is caused by a force of some kind, perhaps of a kind not previously observed/known, and that an observation of a change of inertial state implies a cause of a force of some kind.

When we observe a negative Q/Consequence(s), then we know that we are dealing with a force of some kind which is causing the change of inertial state Q/Consequence(s) = X to nX.

In the least, by the observation of nX we now know that the problem--the observation of nX instead of X--lies in the P/Condition(s) and that the problem narrows down to a force of some kind, and, therefore, we know what we are to be looking for; whether or not we find it is not necessarily predictable, but the history of science has revealed steady progress/success in determining the forces which cause changes of inertial states, so the possibility is excellent that those forces--those missing or additional P/Conditions--will be found.

Profound skepticism is refuted by the practical reality wherein scientists and therefore science go on regardless of what philosophers have to say are/are not the limits of scientists/science.

The QM HUP/Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle appears to invalidate causality, but causality is nevertheless present at QM scalar levels.

No, it doesn't invalidate causality. It limits observability. QM "scalar levels" are really the whole universe. There are plenty of quantum phenomena which occur at large scales (e.g. quanta with very long wavelenths).

Newsflash: The HUP says that because we cannot observe small stuffs we cannot determine which individual small stuffs will change inertial states and therefore what forces are causing the changes of inertial states of those individual small stuffs, therefore determinism and its cousin, causality, are out at QM small stuffs scales, and all that can be done inre predictions inre small stuffs is to observe crowds of small stuffs to determine what percentage of the total number of small stuffs change inertial states and use that data--the percentages--to predict the number of small stuffs in a crowd of small stuffs whose total number is known which will change their inertial states.

If you disagree, then you reveal that you do not know what the HUP and QM uncertainty are all about.

The QM causality is a subject for another thread.

No, it directly applies to this discussion, in that it creates limits on what can be observed about physical systems, and the degree to which anything can be known to an observer.

Okay.

Brief Discussion:

The law of inertia and its corollaries reveal that a change of inertial state is caused by a force of some kind, and an observation of a change of inertial state implies its cause to be a force of some kind, therefore, even at QM small stuffs scalar levels, when changes of inertial states are observed the implication is that the changes of inertial states are caused by forces of some kind, which implies that causality is occurring at QM small stuffs scalar levels, and that implies that determinism is alive and well at QM scalar levels, a point which Einstein argued [he stated that QM is an incomplete theory because its proponents/champions did not admit and attempt to discover/determine/describe the forces which cause QM causality/determinism], and against which his critics/challengers argued [that's all factual, as revealed by the history of physics].

Warning: If you do not agree with the claims of facts in the above paragraph then no further discussion is possible. [As a horse can be lead to water but he/she cannot be forced to drink, so a philosopher can be lead to the facts but he/she cannot be forced to think.]

[Sven]

No. Because they know ... etc.
Does your quote mean you would not take The Challenge?
Wrong.
Then take The Challenge!!!
I explained why your challenge is a strawman.
Hey, are you planning to beat Hovind with this crap you bring up here?

[Sven]

If your If P, Then Q logical argument were to effectively parallel mine, then you would be essentially asserting that it is possible that some human skulls would survive running headfirst through stoneworks, which has never been observed, and by knowledge of human skulls and stoneworks, will never happen.

However, we know from observation that some people actually do win the lottery--otherwise people would never buy lottery tickets, so, again, considering the fact that we have never observed heads running headfirst into stoneworks surviving without negative physical consequences your attempt to parallel my logical argument does not work.
However, we also know from observation that particles actually do penetrate walls (which they won't be able to penetrate classically). So it's you who just build a huge strawman.

[Sven]

The QM HUP/Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle appears to invalidate causality, but causality is nevertheless present at QM scalar levels.

The QM causality is a subject for another thread.
Yes, it is. This reminds me of the fact that you never answered this post (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1919249#post1919249).

Edited to add: This thread is once again an example for the fact that it's easy to use philosophy for anything you like to prove.

[Anglican]

Bobk alot of what you sya dioesn't make sense.

In symbolic logic "If P then Q" is usually the premise of an argument, it certainly does not consitute a logical argument in itself, i.e. a common form of argemunet would be:

Premise 1: If P then Q
Premise 2: P
Conclusion: Therefore Q

Which is a logically valid argument.

Howver science uses induction which take the form of the argument:

If P then Q
Q
Therefore P

Which is not actually a logically valid argument, however replacing the conclusion with "Therefore not P" still doens't make the arguemnt valid so the truth of the conclusion cannot be proved or disproved from the premise(s).

[Bob K]

Philosophers who deny that natural causal relationships could exist which will always exist and never allow any possibility of a contrary causal result are wrong.

Well, I guess that's it then. Case closed. Show's over.

It should be.

Human skepticism does not deny the existence of natural causal relationships. It only questions the degree to which those relationships can be known to an observer.

Fine.

Wonderful.

Now answer the begged question: What is the degree to which natural relationships can be known to an observer?

And then answer this begged question: How can an observer know the degree to which he can know natural relationships?

Inre an If P, Then Q, logical argument, the P functions as a condition or a set of conditions and the Q functions as a consequence.

"If P, Then Q" is not a logical argument. It is an assertion. An argument presumes a valid specification of P and a valid theory liking P with Q.

Are you serious?

The If P, Then Q sentence IS a logical argument.

Basic introductions to philosophy identify/specify an If P, Then Q sentence to be one form of a logical argument.

[See Introduction To Philosophy by Peter McInerney, Harper-Collins, 1992, pp. 5-6.]

Thus, under condition(s) P, in which specific P = specific organisms/objects/events comprised of matter/energy who/which function as causes, those organisms/objects/events who/which are the P/conditions will always cause Q--the organism(s)/object(s)/event(s) who/which is (are) the consequence(s).

You seem to be saying that you are a determinist. Fine. That has nothing to do with what can be known to us observers.

Then answer the begged question: What can known to us observers?

Then answer this begged question: How do us observers know what can/cannot be known to us observers?

When P is precisely specified, then there is no possibility except for Q.

You mean when P is correctly and precisely specified, and Q is precisely specified. We have no truly precise specifications in science. There is always a little error in every measurement, and a little imprecision in every device, and a little uncertainty in every observation.

When P is correctly and precisely specified, then Q is the only possibility.

If you get rid of the philosophical mantras that clog your brain and keep it from functioning properly and then do some critical original thinking then you will intuit that the above statement is in fact a statement of fact--a description of reality.

If the P/Conditions are A+B+C and are observed to be causal inre the Q/Consequence X, as in A+B+C -> X, meaning each case of A+B+C leads to/causes X, then for each and every case in which P/Conditions = A+B+C the only possibility is the Q/Consequence X.

If X does not occur/if nX occurs, the obvious question is: Why?

Research into the P/Conditions will reveal either A or B or C is missing or another variable, D, or E, or F, or ..., etc., is present and therefore affecting the Q/Consequence, nX, or a combination of a missing original variable and an additional variable.

Whether or not us observers are able to determine/discover specific/precise additional P/Conditions is initially irrelevant to the fact that nX has revealed the presence of either missing or additional P/Conditions.

Once the nX Q/Consequence reveals (1) one of the P/Conditions is missing, (2) additional P/Conditions are affecting/causing nX, or (3) one of the P/Conditions is missing and additional P/Conditions are causing nX, then we know that we must begin the process of discovering/determining if (1) is causing nX--theoretically possible to determine because where A, B, and C were previously observable P/Conditions then observance should reveal which is missing--or if (2) is causing nX, or if (3) is causing nX.

Until an effort is made to observe directly or indirectly by their influence on observable organisms/objects/events comprised of matter/energy additional P/Conditions, we may not know/determine/discover if or not we are capable of knowing if or not we are capable of discovering/determining/knowing what are the additional P/Conditions which have caused nX.

Restated: A negative result, Q/Consequence = nX, reveals complications/problems with the P/Condition(s) of an If P/Condition(s), Then Q/Consequence(s) logical argument.

If P should appear to occur but not cause Q, then we know an intervening variable has affected the expected result,

[quote=S]The "intervening variables" are what skepticism is all about.

Newsflash: Discovering/determining/learning what are the intervening variables that screw up If P/Condition(s), Then Q/Consequence(s) logical arguments is/are what science and philosophical inquiry are all about.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, ...

When all P/Conditions are known inre an If P/Condition(s), then Q/Consequence(s) logical argument, then, when the P/Condition(s) occur(s), the only possibility is the Q/Consequence(s).

The logic in all this is valid and true.

If you do not agree that the logic is valid and true, then you only reveal that you do not understand the logic or otherwise have some mental problems--severe emotional attachments to philosophical mantras--which keep you from admitting the logic is valid and true.

You have already demonstrated a lack of knowledge that an If P/Condition(s), Then Q/Consequence(s) sentence/statement is in fact a logical argument.

and we have to track it down,

We have to assume that we can track it down. Why should we think we'll be able to track everything down? Even in mathematics we know that there are unprovable truths. There are propositions for which we will never find a counterexample, but which are impossible to Prove.

Why should we think we will not be able to track down intervening variables?

A negative Q/Consequence, nX, reveals its cause to be an intervening or otherwise missing P/Condition in the P/Condition(s) section of an If P/Condition(s), Then Q/Consequence(s) logical argument.

In physics, the law of inertia and its corollaries reveal that a change of an inertial state [speed and/or direction, a.k.a. rest v motion] is caused by a force of some kind, perhaps of a kind not previously observed/known, and that an observation of a change of inertial state implies a cause of a force of some kind.

When we observe a negative Q/Consequence(s), then we know that we are dealing with a force of some kind which is causing the change of inertial state Q/Consequence(s) = X to nX.

In the least, by the observation of nX we now know that the problem--the observation of nX instead of X--lies in the P/Condition(s) and that the problem narrows down to a force of some kind, and, therefore, we know what we are to be looking for; whether or not we find it is not necessarily predictable, but the history of science has revealed steady progress/success in determining the forces which cause changes of inertial states, so the possibility is excellent that those forces--those missing or additional P/Conditions--will be found.

Profound skepticism is refuted by the practical reality wherein scientists and therefore science go on regardless of what philosophers have to say are/are not the limits of scientists/science.

The QM HUP/Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle appears to invalidate causality, but causality is nevertheless present at QM scalar levels.

No, it doesn't invalidate causality. It limits observability. QM "scalar levels" are really the whole universe. There are plenty of quantum phenomena which occur at large scales (e.g. quanta with very long wavelengths).

Newsflash: The HUP says that because we cannot observe small stuffs we cannot determine which individual small stuffs will change inertial states and therefore what forces are causing the changes of inertial states of those individual small stuffs, therefore determinism and its cousin, causality, are out at QM small stuffs scales, and all that can be done inre predictions inre small stuffs is to observe crowds of small stuffs to determine what percentage of the total number of small stuffs change inertial states and use that data--the percentages--to predict the number of small stuffs in a crowd of small stuffs whose total number is known which will change their inertial states.

If you disagree, then you reveal that you do not know what the HUP and QM uncertainty are all about.

The QM causality is a subject for another thread.

No, it directly applies to this discussion, in that it creates limits on what can be observed about physical systems, and the degree to which anything can be known to an observer.

Okay.

Brief Discussion:

The law of inertia and its corollaries reveal that a change of inertial state is caused by a force of some kind, and an observation of a change of inertial state implies its cause to be a force of some kind, therefore, even at QM small stuffs scalar levels, when changes of inertial states are observed, the implication is that the changes of inertial states are caused by forces of some kind, which implies that causality is occurring at QM small stuffs scalar levels, and that implies that determinism is alive and well at QM scalar levels, a point which Einstein argued [he stated that QM is an incomplete theory because its proponents/champions did not admit and attempt to discover/determine/describe the forces which cause QM causality/determinism], and against which his critics/challengers argued [that's all factual, as revealed by the history of physics].

Warning: If you do not agree with the claims of facts in the above paragraph then no further discussion is possible. [As a horse can be lead to water but he/she cannot be forced to drink, so a philosopher can be lead to the facts but he/she cannot be forced to think.]

[Hugo Holbling]

Am i missing something or is Bob's latest post (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2120509#post2120509) an exact copy of his last (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2107589#post2107589)? In any case, i explained in this (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2081437#post2081437) unanswered post why the "challenge" shows only a misunderstanding of basic issues, not least of which is the problem of induction.

Philosophers have not yet accepted this challenge.

Why?

Although i am certain that philosophers to a man (and woman) read your posts with great interest, Bob, the unfortunate difficulty is that no finite number of confirmations/verifications can prove causality. Responding to this ages-old difficulty with "wrong" is perhaps why many people are apparently equating your test with the experience of discussing these issues with you.

[Bob K]

I explained why your challenge is a strawman.
Hey, are you planning to beat Hovind with this crap you bring up here?

The Challenge is no strawman; no strawman is present in The Challenge.

Who is [Kent] Hovind? I have head the name, but cannot connect him with any philosophical concepts/principles/techniques.

If you do not agree that If P/Conditions, Then Q/Consequence logical arguments describe natural causal relationships [NCRs, a.k.a. scientific principles] when the P/Conditions are precisely specified, as can be done inre human skulls and the proposed stoneworks, and which can only cause the Q/Consequence, then, according to your logic, anything goes, and, if you study science, which basically is the discipline which searches for NCRs, scientists will not agree with you, although skeptic philosophers might--and yet they will not take up The Challenge because they know an NCR exists and is therefore a reality inre human skulls and the proposed stoneworks, and that (1) they would lose The Challenge and (2) either die or suffer serious injury and pain.

[Majestyk]

Are you willing to take The Challenge?
No. I'd probably crack my skull.

[Bob K]

However, we also know from observation that particles actually do penetrate walls (which they won't be able to penetrate classically). So it's you who just build a huge strawman.

Are we talking about human skulls vis a vis the proposed stoneworks? Or particles vis a vis walls of any physical/chemical/biological characteristics?

Where in my writings do you find any wordings which mean or otherwise can be construed to mean that I have claimed that particles cannot penetrate walls/stoneworks?

As I recall, physicists have pointed out that much of what was once considered solid matter is in fact porous because of the open spaces between particles, and that, therefore, particles can penetrate seemingly solid walls because of the inherent porosity of the walls.

What is clear that previously/presently observed huyman skulls of precise specific physical/chemical/biological characteristics cannot penetrate the walls of stoneworks of precise specific physical/chemical/biological characteristics such as the proposed stoneworks, and until the physical/chemical/biological characteristics of human skulls and/or the proposed stoneworks change, then the NCR inre human skulls and the proposed stoneworks continues to exist as a precise specific and predictable (at 100% predictability) NCR/scientific principle.

As you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him/her drink, so you can lead a skeptical philosopher to facts but you cannot make him/her/it think.

[Bob K]

The QM HUP/Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle appears to invalidate causality, but causality is nevertheless present at QM scalar levels.

The QM causality is a subject for another thread.

Yes, it is. This reminds me of the fact that you never answered this post (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1919249#post1919249).

Edited to add: This thread is once again an example for the fact that it's easy to use philosophy for anything you like to prove.

INRE the HUP:

The Law of Inertia and Its Corollaries

Albert Einstein, in Relativity: The Special and General Theory, Crown Publishers, New York, 1961, translated by Robert Lawson.

As is well known, the fundamental law of the mechanics of Galilei-Newton, which is known as the law if inertia, can be stated thus: A body sufficiently far from other bodies continues in a state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line. [p. 11.]

Charles Proteus Steinmetz: The Fundamental Law of Physics

Charles Proteus Steinmetz.
Four Lectures on Relativity and Space.
Dover Publications, Inc., 180 Varick Street, New York, NY 10014 1967
pp. 49–50.

The fundamental law of physics is the law of inertia. "A body keeps the same state as long as there is no cause to change its state." That is, it remains at rest or continues the same kind of motion—that is, motion with the same velocity in the same direction—until some cause changes it, and such cause we call a 'force.' " [Quotes in the original, but not attributed to anyone.]

This is really not merely a law of physics, but it is the fundamental law of logic. It is the law of cause and effect: "Any effect must have a cause, and without cause there can be no effect." This is axiomatic and is the fundamental conception of all knowledge, because all knowledge consists in finding the cause of some effect or the effect of some cause, and therefore must presuppose that every effect has some cause, and inversely. [Quotes in the original but not attributed to anyone.]



The law of inertia: An object maintains its inertial state of being at rest or in uniform motion [uniform speed and direction, or uniform velocity] until acted upon by a force--a push or a pull.

Corrollary 1: A force causes a change of the inertial state of an object.

Corollary 2: The observation of a change of the inertial state of an object implies the observation of a force as the cause of the change of the inertial state.

Inertial States [No Forces Being Applied]:

1. Being at rest.
2. Being in uniform motion (uniform speed and direction; uniform velocity).

Changes of Inertial States [Forces Being Applied]:

1. From the inertial state of being at rest to the inertial state of being in uniform motion; from being at rest to being in uniform motion.
2. From the inertial state of being in uniform motion to the inertial state of being at rest; from being in uniform motion to being at rest.
3. From the inertial state of being in uniform motion to the inertial state of being in nonuniform motion; from being in uniform motion to being in nonuniform motion. [The continuous application of a force will cause a continuous change of inertial state to the inertial state of being in a nonuniform motion.]

The concept of an inertial state can be expanded to include changes not only of motion/rest but also changes of configuration as when particles/atoms decay and the resulting configuration continues under e = mc2 and m = e/c2 and the conservation of electric charge, momentum, etc. Thus, when a single particle decays into one or more subparticles or/and into energy, there is a change of that particle's inertial state.

Thus, when changes of inertial states are observed among small stuffs at the QM level, the Law of Inertia and its Corollaries implies the application of forces of some kind [forces caused the observed changes of inertial states] and therefore causality and its cousin, determinism, although the precise/specific forces applied to individuals small stuffs cannot be described.

If you insist on claiming that there is absolutely no causality and/or determinism at QM levels [no forces cause changes of inertial states at QM levels], then you are talking nonsense.

[Bob K]

Bobk a lot of what you say doesn't make sense.

In symbolic logic "If P then Q" is usually the premise of an argument, it certainly does not consitute a logical argument in itself, i.e. a common form of argument would be:

Premise 1: If P then Q
Premise 2: P
Conclusion: Therefore Q

Which is a logically valid argument.

Peter McInerney, in Introduction To Philosophy, on pp 5-6 describes what you have described. I have chosen to call this the If P, Then Q logical argument because of its form wherein If P, Then Q is a premise--Premise #1-- but also describes the natural causal relationship between the P/Conditions and the Q/Consequence such that if the P/Conditions occur in Premise #2 then the Q/Consequence is inevitable/100% predictable.

I have chosen to contrast the If P, Then Q logical argument with the All Ps = Qs; X = P; Therefore X = Q logical argument.

Make note that I am applying titles for the two basic types of logical arguments inre their premises.

But make note also that the If P, Then Q logical argument does in fact present a description of a natural causal relationship/scientific principle when the P/Conditions/Causes are precisely specified and the Q/Consequence/Effect is inevitable and 100% predictable.

Howver science uses induction which takes the form of the argument:

If P then Q
Q
Therefore P

Which is not actually a logically valid argument, however replacing the conclusion with "Therefore not P" still doesn't make the arguemnt valid so the truth of the conclusion cannot be proved or disproved from the premise(s).

I am not aware that scientists use the If P, Then Q logical argument as you have described, with the following identification of the premises and the conclusion:

Premise #1: If P, Then Q
Premise #2: Q
Conclusion: Therefore P.

Instead, I am only aware that scientists (1) observe units of study to develop data which can be used for (2) developing an hypothesis which can be cast as an If P, Then Q logical argument, then (3) observing more units of study to develop the data which can (4) confirm or deny the hypothesis, after which the scientists (5) present their research methods and findings to other scientists (and perhaps also the general public) for the purpose of encouraging other scientists to replicate the research and thereby observe additional units of study to obtain data which confirm or deny the hypothesis/proposed scientific principle.

In that regard, the application of the If P, Then Q logical argument would be as follows:

Premise #1: If P/Conditions/Causes, Then Q/Consequence/Effect
Premise #2: P/Conditions/Causes
Conclusion: Therefore Q/Consequence/Effect

The scientists would then first create the P/Conditions/Causes and note if or not the Q/Consequence/Effect is a result.

Example: Stanley Miller and his assistant, Urey, developed an If P, Then Q logical argument inre possible natural causal relationships in which when the P/Conditions/Causes were (A) the proportions of gasses thought to be present in the Earth's early atmosphere and (B) a shot of high-voltage electricity [as would occur in natural thunderstorms] then the Q/Consequence/Effect would be the emergence from the gasses of amino acids, the essential building blocks of life. Miller and Urey then created the P/Conditions/Causes of the proposed mixture of gasses, hit it with high-voltage electricity, and got the result of amino acids.

Premise #1: If P/Conditions/Causes = Proposed Gas Mixture + High-Voltage Electricity, Then Q/Consequence/Effect = Amino Acids
Premise #2: P/Conditions/Causes = Proposed Gas Mixture + High-Voltage Electricity
Conclusion: Q/Consequence/Effect = Amino Acids

Because the conclusion agreed with the premises, the hypothesis was confirmed and the natural causal relationship between the P/Conditions/Causes of specific gas mixtures + high-voltage electricity and the Q/Consequence/Effect of amino acids was established as a scientific principle.

But make notice of the sequence.

Premise #1 sets up the P/Conditions/Causes and says that when these P/Conditions/Causes are present they will cause the Q/Consequence/Effect; then, with premise #2: P/conditions/Causes we get the Conclusion: Q/Consequence/Effect.

That means first you have to have the P/Conditions/Causes.

The sequence does not eliminate the possibility that other P/Conditions/Causes will also cause the Q/Consequence/Effect, but what it does in fact present in no unclear terms is the observable facts that When the P/Conditions/Causes are present Then the Q/Consequence/Effect is inevitable and therefore 100% predictable.

This sequence sets up the conditions under which a scientific principle/natural causal relationship is proven--by physical evidence--and the principle/NCR is no longer a probability or an hypothesis to be proven.

Note that the sequence under which scientific investigation is conducted is important.

If you get the sequence right, you get the possibility of establishing an NCR/scientific principle.

That sequence has to be (1) P/Conditions/Causes, then (2) Q/Consequence/Effect.

The causality is #1 causes #2.

If you start with #2 Q/Consequence/Effect, there is no possibility of linking forever/beyond a doubt the Q/Consequence/Effect with the proposed P/Conditions/Causes because there will remain the possibility that other P/Conditions/Causes can cause the Q/Consequence/Effect.

If you disagree, then consider this: If you observe the Q/Consequences/Effect and infer the P/Conditions/Causes, then you have not followed a sequence which will link forever and beyond a doubt the P/Conditions/Causes with the Q/Cosnequence/Effect because of the possibility that other P/Conditions/Causes could cause and therefore be linked to the Q/Consequence/Effect.

Restated: If you only observe a Q/Consequence/Effect and infer P/Conditions/Causes then you cannot call the C/Conditions/Causes the only P/Conditions/Causes of the Q/Consequence/Effect and you cannot claim that you have discovered a natural causal relationship/scientific principle.

But, instead, if you create the P/Conditions/Causes and consistently observe the Q/Consequence/Effect, then you can logically call the P/Conditions/Causes the only causes of the Q/Consequence/Effect as it relates to the the P/Conditions/Causes.

If you observe the Q/Consequence/Effect as your first observation, then you have to check out what were the preceding P/Conditions/Causes, then run experiments in which you first set up the P/Conditions/Causes to observe if or not they do in fact cause the Q/Consequence/Effect.

When the precise/specific P/Conditions/Causes cause the precise/specific Q/Consequence/Effect with 100% predictability, then you have a proven natural causal relationship/scientific principle.

If you observe a negative Q/Consequence/Effect, then you know that the only possibile causes are (1) one of the P/Conditions/Causes is missing; (2) an additional P/Condition/Cause is present; or (3) one of the P/Conditions/Causes is missing and an additional P/Condition/Cause is present.

A negative Q/Consequence/Effect does not negate the NCR/scientific principle; instead, it shows that when those precise/specified P/Conditions/Causes are present will the Q/Consequence/Effect be 100% predictable and that, therefore, the NCR/principle is valid/true.

Thus, when a claim of fact is set up as an If P/conditions/Causes, Then Q/Consequence/Effect logical argument, then an NCR/scientific principle is effectively described, and this is therefore the basis of true knowledge [the probabilities have been eliminated by the precise/specific linkage of the P/Conditions/Causes to the Q/Consequence/Effect].

[Sven]

The Challenge is no strawman; no strawman is present in The Challenge.
Of course it is. Why should anyone run with his head against a wall if they know in advance that the possibility that they won't get hurt is close to zero?

Who is [Kent] Hovind? I have head the name, but cannot connect him with any philosophical concepts/principles/techniques.
Hovind (www.drdino.com[/url) is the guy who presents the most famous strawman on the net; he builds up a theory of evolution that nobody subscribe to and then claims because nobody takes the challenge to refute it, evolution is wrong.

Exactly the same as you do here.

If you do not agree that If P/Conditions, Then Q/Consequence logical arguments describe natural causal relationships [NCRs, a.k.a. scientific principles] when the P/Conditions are precisely specified
We can precisely specify the conditions of an atom of an unstable element. But we can not predict if it will decay in the next second or not. So Q does not always necessarily follow if P is specified.

then, according to your logic, anything goes
Bullshit. As long as we know where the "limit" of causality lies, there's no problem.

[snipped strawmannish challenge, presented once again]

[Sven]

INRE the HUP:
The Law of Inertia and Its Corollaries
Albert Einstein, in Relativity: The Special and General Theory, Crown Publishers, New York, 1961, translated by Robert Lawson.
So what? Einstein's opinions are not worth a dime when discussing QM; he opposed it until the end of his life.


Charles Proteus Steinmetz: The Fundamental Law of Physics

Charles Proteus Steinmetz.
Four Lectures on Relativity and Space.
Dover Publications, Inc., 180 Varick Street, New York, NY 10014 1967
pp. 49–50.
I wonder how this guy would interpret Stern-Gerlach-experiments (and other QM phenomena). Did you look up those in the meantime, BTW?
If someone would present an explantion for those experiments consistent with "the law of inertia", this discussion would finally be settled. But as long as this does not happen, I'm confident in saying that this law simply is not something which applies in 100% of all cases.

[snip]

Thus, when changes of inertial states are observed among small stuffs at the QM level, the Law of Inertia and its Corollaries implies the application of forces of some kind [forces caused the observed changes of inertial states] and therefore causality and its cousin, determinism, although the precise/specific forces applied to individuals small stuffs cannot be described.
Bob, we discussed this at length in the thread I linked to above. I gave you a picture of the energetics involved, explained at which points we have which forces, explained why because of this classically no decay is possible, and explained how QM overcomes this problem. You did not answer this post, so I see no reason to start the discussion here again.

If you insist on claiming that there is absolutely no causality and/or determinism at QM levels
Bullshit. I never claimed something like this. Only that causality/determinism is not necessarily given at the QM level.

[no forces cause changes of inertial states at QM levels]
I only claimed that there are example in which no force (seems to be?? necessary, see above (Stern-Gerlach)

then you are talking nonsense.
Thanks for presenting another strawman.

[Bob K]

Sven

The Challenge is no strawman; no strawman is present in The Challenge.

Of course it is. Why should anyone run with his head against a wall if they know in advance that the possibility that they won't get hurt is close to zero?

The Points:

1. Skeptical philosophers deny the existence of knowledge when knowledge is defined as 100% predictability of causality.

2, There exist natural causal relationships--NCRs, a.k.a. scientific principles/laws--which are 100% accurate and therefore provide 100% predictable results when, by If P/Conditions, Then Q/Consequence(s) logical arguments, the P/Conditions--the causes--are precisely specified then there is no other possibility than the Q/Consequence(s)--the effect(s).

3. Skeptical philosophers are therefore wrong.

4. Example: Human skulls vs Proposed Stoneworks: Prediction = Human skulls crack open and their occupants either die or suffer serious injuries and pain and suffering.

5. The Challenge.

The reason skeptical philosophers refuse to take The Challenge is their knowledge that their death/injury is 100% certain, hence, although they will not admit it, they are aware that there in fact exist some NCRs which are 100% valid/Predictable/True/etc.

If you do not understand The Points of The Challenge, for whatever reason--lack of intellect, lack of emotional detachment from philosophical/physics mantras, etc., then there's no point in discussing it.

Who is [Kent] Hovind? I have heard the name, but cannot connect him with any philosophical concepts/principles/techniques.

Hovind is the guy who presents the most famous strawman on the net; he builds up a theory of evolution that nobody subscribes to and then claims because nobody takes the challenge to refute it, evolution is wrong.

Exactly the same as you do here.

Your link did not take me to Hovind/Hovind's website/???.

The Points of The Challenge explain themselves.

If you do not agree that If P/Conditions, Then Q/Consequence logical arguments describe natural causal relationships [NCRs, a.k.a. scientific principles] when the P/Conditions are precisely specified ...

We can precisely specify the conditions of an atom of an unstable element. But we can not predict if it will decay in the next second or not. So Q does not always necessarily follow if P is specified.

Here you reveal that you continuously deny the fact that I have been saying that we cannot predict which individual atom will change its inertial state and, instead, at QM levels, we have to observe crowds of atom and observe the percentages of atoms within those crowds to create percentage predictability hypotheses which can be tested by additional observations--which is exactly what QM physicists have done and the result has been the development percentage predictabilities which QM physicists now use, and which have been demonstrated to be successful.

The Point is that these percentage predictions would not happen if causality/determinism were not happening at QM levels.

And the law of inertia and its corollaries state (1) objects at rest/in uniform motion continue their inertial states until acted upon by forces [pushes or pulls]; (2) a force is the cause of a change of inertial state; (3) an observation of a change of inertial state implies its causality is a force.

Do we have observations of changes of inertial states of atoms at QM levels?

If so, then the causality is forces.

... then, according to your logic, anything goes.

Bullshit. As long as we know where the "limit" of causality lies, there's no problem.

And what exactly is the 'limit' of causality?

How do we determine what is the 'limit' of causality?

Are we restricted to claims of causality to only individual atoms, or can we broaden that scope to include crowds--percentages--of atoms?

The answers to all of these questions lie in the law of inertia and its corollaries, not in QM mysticisms.

Causality/determinism exist at QM levels. Changes of inertial states would not occur/be observed to occur unless caused by forces of some kind.

[Bob K]

Sven

... Einstein's opinions are not worth a dime when discussing QM; he opposed it until the end of his life.

AE stated--paraphrase--that QM is an incomplete theory. He is correct.

Causality and determinism exists at QM levels; humans have the problem of trying to observe and not disturb small stuffs at QM scalar levels, therefore precise causality/determinism for one atom is at present not possible, therefore crowds of atoms are observed, the percentages of atoms which undergo changes of inertial state are observed, and, over numerous observances, the percentages are averaged to create a predictability which is a form of causality/determinism based not on precise predictions of changes of inertial states of individual atoms but instead based upon an expectancy of changes of a percentage of atoms in given crowds of atoms.

We have discussed this before and you continuously write as if you do not understand that I am aware that the precise inertial states of individual atoms cannot be predict with 100% accuracy but physicists have observed crowds of atoms and observed the percentages of atoms which undergo changes of inertial states and from these observations have developed the predictability percentages which have been observed to accurately describe and predict the changes of inertial states of a number of atoms but of individual atoms.

And you continue to write as if you do not understand that I have accepted as valid the percentage predictabilities.

Yet because the law of inertia and its corollaries are fundamental to physics, whenever changes of inertial states are observed, there is an inference that those changes are caused by forces of some kind--internal or external or both--and therefore there is causality and therefore determinism at QM levels despite the fact that humans cannot observe and not disturb individual atoms to determine what forces--internal/external/both--are causing those changes of inertial states.


Charles Proteus Steinmetz: The Fundamental Law of Physics

Charles Proteus Steinmetz.
Four Lectures on Relativity and Space.
Dover Publications, Inc., 180 Varick Street, New York, NY 10014 1967
pp. 49–50.

I wonder how this guy would interpret Stern-Gerlach-experiments (and other QM phenomena). Did you look up those in the meantime, BTW?

No.

If the results somehow claim to invalidate the law of inertia and its corollaries, then those results are bogus because the of inertia and its corollaries are fundamental to all matter/energy.

If someone would present an explanation for those experiments consistent with "the law of inertia", this discussion would finally be settled. But as long as this does not happen, I'm confident in saying that this law simply is not something which applies in 100% of all cases.

It does apply 100%.

Thus, when changes of inertial states are observed among small stuffs at the QM level, the Law of Inertia and its Corollaries implies the application of forces of some kind [forces caused the observed changes of inertial states] and therefore causality and its cousin, determinism, although the precise/specific forces applied to individuals small stuffs cannot be described.

Bob, we discussed this at length in the thread I linked to above. I gave you a picture of the energetics involved, explained at which points we have which forces, explained why because of this classically no decay is possible, and explained how QM overcomes this problem. You did not answer this post, so I see no reason to start the discussion here again.

I recall that you challenged me to answer what are the changes of inertial states of and atom or a molecule when the atom/molecule breaks down into components, and that was easy to answer, because the breakdown was in fact a change of inertial state caused by forces of some kind--internal/external/both--and the simple observation of the change of inertial state--by one of the law of inertia corollaries--is proof of the causality of a force of some kind.

For every change of inertial state a force of some kind is either the cause or one of the causes; therefore, an observation of a change of inertial state implies its cause to be a force of some kind.

If you insist on claiming that there is absolutely no causality and/or determinism at QM levels ...

Bullshit. I never claimed something like this. Only that causality/determinism is not necessarily given at the QM level.

How is "causality/determinism is not necessarily given at the QM level" n= "there is absolutely no causality and/or determinism at QM levels"?

What do you mean by "not necessarily given?"

I have been saying that we cannot at present observe directly the forces causing a change of inertial state of an individual atom, but we can observe changes of inertial states of crowds of atoms and derive from those observations the predictions/expectancies of the percentages of changes of inertial states--the number of atoms which are expected/predicted to change their inertial states/have their inertial states changed. These percentage predictions function to provide us a description of causality/determinism at QM levels. I.E., causality/determinism happens at QM levels, and the percentage predictions are proof of causality/determinism. I.E., without causality/determinism, the percentage predictions would not be observed.

[... no forces cause changes of inertial states at QM levels]

I only claimed that there are examples in which no force seems to be necessary, see above (Stern-Gerlach)

The corollaries to the law of inertia state that a force causes a change of inertial state and the observation of a change of inertial state implies its cause to be a force.

It's really simple: Observe a change of inertial state and you know that that change was caused by a force.

... then you are talking nonsense.

Thanks for presenting another strawman.

You lose credibility when you deny the law of inertia and its corollaries are fundamental to all of physics [matter/energy].

[Sven]

The Points:[snip]
The reason skeptical philosophers refuse to take The Challenge is their knowledge that their death/injury is 100% certain, hence, although they will not admit it, they are aware that there in fact exist some NCRs which are 100% valid/Predictable/True/etc.

If you do not understand The Points of The Challenge, for whatever reason--lack of intellect, lack of emotional detachment from philosophical/physics mantras, etc., then there's no point in discussing it.
Let me ask you a simple question:
If you were 99.9999999999999999999% certain (but not 100%!) that you would hurt yourself badly by running against a wall, would you nevertheless try it?

Your link did not take me to Hovind/Hovind's website/???.
Sorry, the ] was missing (but I got a link nevertheless?!?) This should work:
http://www.drdino.com

Here you reveal that you continuously deny the fact that I have been saying that we cannot predict which individual atom will change its inertial state
Thus determinism is dead for individual particles (I would not restrict this to atoms since even molecules show this behaviour in special circumstances). That's what I said all along.

we have to observe crowds of atom and observe the percentages of atoms within those crowds to create percentage predictability hypotheses which can be tested by additional observations--which is exactly what QM physicists have done and the result has been the development percentage predictabilities which QM physicists now use, and which have been demonstrated to be successful.
The point you continue to miss is that these probabilities not only hold for crowds of atoms, but also for individual atoms.

The Point is that these percentage predictions would not happen if causality/determinism were not happening at QM levels.
Why?

And the law of inertia and its corollaries state (1) objects at rest/in uniform motion continue their inertial states until acted upon by forces [pushes or pulls]; (2) a force is the cause of a change of inertial state; (3) an observation of a change of inertial state implies its causality is a force.

Do we have observations of changes of inertial states of atoms at QM levels?

If so, then the causality is forces.
If we don't observe a force, but observe changes, this suggests that the law of inertia might have exceptions. Simply repeating the law does not negate the experiments.

And what exactly is the 'limit' of causality?

How do we determine what is the 'limit' of causality?
This is something still worked on. Look up "decoherence" as an example.

Are we restricted to claims of causality to only individual atoms, or can we broaden that scope to include crowds--percentages--of atoms?
It's the other way round. The question is: What are the requirements for causality to "set in"? Again, look up decoherence.

AE stated--paraphrase--that QM is an incomplete theory. He is correct.
We all know this - that's why physicists search for a combination of QM and general relativity.
Einstein's problems are a different question. The consensus of physicists today is that they were unwarrented.

If the results [of Stern-Gerlach experiments] somehow claim to invalidate the law of inertia and its corollaries, then those results are bogus because the of inertia and its corollaries are fundamental to all matter/energy.
You really remind me of creationists. If something does not fit into your worldview than it simply can not be true.

Because of this, this will be my last reply to you - it's not very productive talking to a wall.

You did not answer this post, so I see no reason to start the discussion here again.
I recall that you challenged me to answer what are the changes of inertial states of and atom or a molecule when the atom/molecule breaks down into components, and that was easy to answer [...]
You apparently missed my long reply to this - which you never answered to. I linked it above, you missed it again. But that's anyway irrelevant now since - as I wrote - this will be my last reply to you; so don't bother answering my linked post. the link is in post #32

How is "causality/determinism is not necessarily given at the QM level" n= "there is absolutely no causality and/or determinism at QM levels"?
What do you mean by "not necessarily given?"

What's so difficult about this? It means: "There may be exceptions."
That's not at all the same as saying that there's no causality/determinism.

It's really simple: Observe a change of inertial state and you know that that change was caused by a force.
And where's the evidence that this is always true? All that you presented up to now is your opinion and some quotes from scientists. Simple repeating it does not make it true.

And as also repeatedly explained: If you think there are some "hidden" forces behind the changes of inertial states of QM stuff, then you subscribe to a Bohmian interpretation. No problem - apart from the little fact that than faster-than-light communication is necessary to explain the experiments (remember Bell's theorem?).
You either have to accept non-causality at the QM level or faster-than-light communication. Which one do you choose?

You lose credibility when you deny the law of inertia and its corollaries are fundamental to all of physics [matter/energy].
You already lost your credibility when you (implicitely) claimed that the law of inertia is something which can not have exceptions and that things can be proven 100% in science (apperently you think that the law of inertia is one of those things).

And may I point out that I'm open to admit the possibility that the law of inertia is always true - I only need an explanation of the QM experiments in terms of this law. I don't think that the one with a more open mind is the one who has less credibility.

Have a nice life - and don't build up to many strawmen. Bye.

[Tomk80]

I am not aware that scientists use the If P, Then Q logical argument as you have described, with the following identification of the premises and the conclusion:

Premise #1: If P, Then Q
Premise #2: Q
Conclusion: Therefore P.
I just wanted to comment on this one for a moment, since it seems to me you got some of the things in the wrong order regarding hypothesis testing.

Instead, I am only aware that scientists (1) observe units of study to develop data which can be used for (2) developing an hypothesis which can be cast as an If P, Then Q logical argument, then (3) observing more units of study to develop the data which can (4) confirm or deny the hypothesis, after which the scientists (5) present their research methods and findings to other scientists (and perhaps also the general public) for the purpose of encouraging other scientists to replicate the research and thereby observe additional units of study to obtain data which confirm or deny the hypothesis/proposed scientific principle.

In that regard, the application of the If P, Then Q logical argument would be as follows:

Premise #1: If P/Conditions/Causes, Then Q/Consequence/Effect
Premise #2: P/Conditions/Causes
Conclusion: Therefore Q/Consequence/Effect

The scientists would then first create the P/Conditions/Causes and note if or not the Q/Consequence/Effect is a result.
What you seem to fail to realize here, is that scientists do not observe the conditions/causes when doing an experiment, but create them. Their observation is not the condition, but the consequence.

Example: Stanley Miller and his assistant, Urey, developed an If P, Then Q logical argument inre possible natural causal relationships in which when the P/Conditions/Causes were (A) the proportions of gasses thought to be present in the Earth's early atmosphere and (B) a shot of high-voltage electricity [as would occur in natural thunderstorms] then the Q/Consequence/Effect would be the emergence from the gasses of amino acids, the essential building blocks of life. Miller and Urey then created the P/Conditions/Causes of the proposed mixture of gasses, hit it with high-voltage electricity, and got the result of amino acids.

Premise #1: If P/Conditions/Causes = Proposed Gas Mixture + High-Voltage Electricity, Then Q/Consequence/Effect = Amino Acids
Premise #2: P/Conditions/Causes = Proposed Gas Mixture + High-Voltage Electricity
Conclusion: Q/Consequence/Effect = Amino Acids
To take your example in the test case:
Premise #1: proposed gas mixture + high voltage electricity gives amino acids
Premise #2: observation: amino acids form from the proposed gas mixture # high voltage electricity
Conclusion: Premise #1 is correct

Because the conclusion agreed with the premises, the hypothesis was confirmed and the natural causal relationship between the P/Conditions/Causes of specific gas mixtures + high-voltage electricity and the Q/Consequence/Effect of amino acids was established as a scientific principle.

But make notice of the sequence.

Premise #1 sets up the P/Conditions/Causes and says that when these P/Conditions/Causes are present they will cause the Q/Consequence/Effect; then, with premise #2: P/conditions/Causes we get the Conclusion: Q/Consequence/Effect.
That means first you have to have the P/Conditions/Causes.
But the effect is not the conclusion. The conclusion is whether premise #1 is correct or not. Premise number two is the observation. You are mixing up the sequence.

The sequence does not eliminate the possibility that other P/Conditions/Causes will also cause the Q/Consequence/Effect, but what it does in fact present in no unclear terms is the observable facts that When the P/Conditions/Causes are present Then the Q/Consequence/Effect is inevitable and therefore 100% predictable.
Not true. Despite taking meticulous care in handling the experiment, there might be a number of different explanations. Maybe the glass was contaminated, maybe we had contamination from other gasses, etc, etc. By performing more experiments we rule out these questions. However, we can never be 100% sure.

This sequence sets up the conditions under which a scientific principle/natural causal relationship is proven--by physical evidence--and the principle/NCR is no longer a probability or an hypothesis to be proven.

Note that the sequence under which scientific investigation is conducted is important. <snap rest>
However, you have your sequence in the wrong order, and there get the wrong conclusions.

[Bob K]

Hugo Holbling

Am [I] missing something or is Bob's latest post an exact copy of his last? In any case, [I] explained in this unanswered post why the "challenge" shows only a misunderstanding of basic issues, not least of which is the problem of induction.

Inre the post copy; I never claimed to have effective secretarial skills, therefore forgetting to relegate a post file to a Been There Done That folder is a likely possibility, and has happened in the past, without threat to national security.

Holbling does not understand that I understand the claim that there is a problem with induction which is that complete certainty and therefore complete predictability is not possible from a finite number of observed cases from which an hypothesis was induced.

Holbling does not understand that the laws of logic wherein A = A and A n= B hold for physics as well as philosophy.

{edited} that when precise P/Conditions/Causes of Q/Consequences/Effects are known, then the certainty of the knowledge of, and predictability of, an hypothesis cast in an If P/Conditions/Causes, Then Q/Consequences/Effects logical argument is in fact 100%, and the natural causal relationship [NCR] described therein is in fact a fact, a scientific principle.

If, for example, the precise conditions/causes of a phenomenon which is the consequence/effect X are known to be A+B+C, wherein A+B+C -> X, then these sets of information/facts can be cast as If P/Conditions/Causes = A+B+C, Then Q/Consequence/Effect = X, and this logical argument reveals the causality of the effect, and the causality is 100% predictable.

If nX should occur, then we know that (1) one of the specified causes—A, or B or C—is missing, (2) another cause—D—is present, or (3) one of the specified causes is missing and another cause is present.

Applying the laws of logic wherein A = A and A n= B,

(1) A+B+C = A+B+C -> X
(2) A + B n= A+B+C -> ?
(3) A+B+C+D n= A+B+C -> ?
(4) A+C+D n= A+B+C -> ?

Thus, when #1 occurs, the A = A law of logic applies and the only possible consequence/effect is X; when #2, #3 or #4 occur, X is not guaranteed.

{edited}

In the same way that a horse can be lead to water but it cannot be made to drink, {edited}.

{edited}

As we pity superstitious religionists, so we can pity skeptical philosophers such as Holbling who cling to their mantras despite clear and obvious refutations of those mantras, for we know that those philosophers will never rise to the level of knowledge to which rational/logical philosophers can and will rise.

Philosophers have not yet accepted this challenge.

Why?

Although [I] am certain that philosophers to a man (and woman) read your posts with great interest, Bob, the unfortunate difficulty is that no finite number of confirmations/verifications can prove causality. Responding to this ages-old difficulty with "wrong" is perhaps why many people are apparently equating your test with the experience of discussing these issues with you.

The problem of induction is shown to be a non-problem when a claim of a natural causal relationship [NCR] is cast as an If P/Conditions, Then Q/Consequence logical argument AND the P/Conditions are precisely specified and present because under those precise/specified P/Conditions the Q/Consequence is inevitable and therefore predictable with 100% accuracy.

If the Q/Consequence should not occur, then the obvious reason is one of the following: (1) The one of the original P/Conditions is missing; (2) An additional variable/condition is present; (3) Both one of the original P/Conditions is missing and an additional variable/condition is present.

An occurrence of nQ/Consequence does not mean that the NCR is wrong; instead, it is confirmation of the fact that the NCR is right--that when the P/Conditions are present as causes, and none are missing, and additional variables are not present, then the Q/Consequence as an effect is inevitable and 100% predictable, but when the P/Conditions are not all present as causes or/and additional variables/conditions are present as causes, then the Q/Consequence as an effect is not inevitable and is therefore not predictable with 100% accuracy.

You are claiming that despite P/Conditions being precisely specified and present, with none missing, and no additional variables present, that there is, nevertheless, the possibility that an nQ/Consequence could occur.

You are wrong.

And you are wrong because of the laws of logic A = A and A n= B.

If P/Conditions = A+B+C and have been/are observed causes of the effect Q/Consequence X, then every case in which the P/Conditions = A+B+C will result in the Q/Consequence X.

If P/Conditions = A+B (No C), then, because A+B (No C) n= A+B+C (B n= A), then Q/Consequence = nX.

I.E., if all specific causes of specific effects are not present, then the specific effects do not happen (or, the effects do not result from the specified causes).

The application of the concept of an If P/Conditions, Then Q/Consequence logical argument and its related principle that when the specified P/Conditions were/are/will be present then the Q/Consequence was/is/will be caused and was/is/will be therefore inevitable and therefore 100% predictable provides true NCRs which are the basis for true knowledge, e.g. accurate concepts and principles and practical techniques.

If you continue to dispute the efficacy/predictability/utility of If P/Conditions, Then Q/Consequence logical arguments when the P/Conditions are precisely specified and have been/are observed to produce/cause the Q/Consequence, then I have to conclude that (1) you do not have the intellectual capability of understanding the logic behind the efficacy of the If P/Conditions, Then Q/Consequence logical arguments, (2) you do not have the personal integrity to admit you are wrong, or, worse, (3) you have neither the intellectual capability nor the personal integrity, and, by any of these possibilities, no further discussion with you will produce any worthwhile advancement in human knowledge.

Inre why skeptical philosophers will not accept and execute The Challenge to prove NCRs do not exist, the only possible explanation/conclusion is this: Skeptical philosophers do in fact accept the NCR that the occupants of human skulls have been observed to die or otherwise suffer severe pain and suffering if they run headfirst through massive stoneworks such as the proposed stoneworks--the Bunker Hill Monument, the Washington Monument, and North Brookings Hall of Washington University of St. Louis.

The proposed stoneworks being within the specifications observed to be associated with death or pain and suffering of human skull occupants who run headfirst through the space/time co-ordinates of those specifications of stoneworks, the skeptical philosophers--because of their individual desires for personal survival and pleasure and fears of personal death and pain/suffering--choose to not accept The Challenge.

Restated: NCRs exist, the NCR inre precise specifications of human skulls and massive stoneworks exists and produces 100% predictability inre death/injury to any occupant of a human skull who chooses to run headfirst through the space/time co-ordinates of one of the massive stoneworks.

BTW, despite claims of the induction problem, has anybody noticed that scientists keep on doing what they do--using the inductive method to generate and test hypotheses--and have produced the advancements in technology/medicine/engineering/production which provide us with the products and services which provide us with a better lifestyle than our ancestors enjoyed?

Holbling, you should note that despite your (and others') claims that there is an inductive problem scientists nevertheless continue to ignore that claim and go on to conduct their research and develop knowledge inre NCRs.

Scientists may not be able to explain how it is that they have learned that when P/Conditions/Causes are present then a specific Q/Consequence/Effect occurred in all cases in the past, occur in all cases in the present, and will occur in all cases in the future, but they nevertheless instinctively realize that NCRs exist, and, in fact, their research ultimately produces awareness of true NCRs (Earth revolves around the Sun, and Sun does not revolve around the Earth, etc.).


{edited}

[Cynthia of Syracuse]

Personal comments and patronizing remarks rarely lead to productive discussion. Everyone is requested to please confine the debate to the arguments presented, and leave the ad homs in your other suits.

[FudoMyoo]

{edited}

I disagree. You are constantly attacking strawmans and making ad hominems, to support your weak position. Not very impressive.

[B_Sharp]

Thus, there are in fact verifiable/falsifiable/verified natural causal relationships which exist between/among objects/events comprised of matter/energy which cannot be deniedThe challenge is winnable.

Qualifiers. As theories are falsified, then they are re-qualified.

Original Theory: Pass your skull through stone wall.

Many testers will fail. Many will die trying. Then the hypothesis is re-Qualified.

Qualified Theory: Pass your skull through thin stone wall.
Qualified Theory: Pass your skull through pumice stone wall.
Qualified Theory: Pass your skull through styrofoam like stone wall.
Qualified Theory: Pass your skull through foam rubber stone like coating appearance wall.

This is now survivable testible.

Finally, another winnable case I like the best:

Qualified Theory: Pass my brother's skull through a stone wall. :thumbs:

[Jesse]

Holbling does not understand that the laws of logic wherein A = A and A n= B hold for physics as well as philosophy.

{edited} that when precise P/Conditions/Causes of Q/Consequences/Effects are known, then the certainty of the knowledge of, and predictability of, an hypothesis cast in an If P/Conditions/Causes, Then Q/Consequences/Effects logical argument is in fact 100%, and the natural causal relationship [NCR] described therein is in fact a fact, a scientific principle.

If, for example, the precise conditions/causes of a phenomenon which is the consequence/effect X are known to be A+B+C, wherein A+B+C -> X, then these sets of information/facts can be cast as If P/Conditions/Causes = A+B+C, Then Q/Consequence/Effect = X, and this logical argument reveals the causality of the effect, and the causality is 100% predictable. OK, every time I open my eyes (A) and it's light out (B) and there's nothing obstructing my eyes (C) I am able to see the world around me (X). Does this prove it's logically impossible I will ever go blind? If not, it seems there is a problem with your argument. Maybe you would argue that A, B, and C are not the only "causes" of my being able to see, but how do you define the word "cause"? If you define the "causes" of a given event X as a set of events A,B,C which are 100% guaranteed to be followed by event X, then your argument suffers from the no true scotsman fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)--if we ever observe empirically that A,B,C occur without being followed by X, you'd simply say "I guess A,B,C weren't the true causes of X after all!" So with this type of definition, we can never know whether correlated events in the real world are truly related by "cause and effect" or not.

[Bob K]

I disagree. You are constantly attacking strawmans and making ad hominems, to support your weak position. Not very impressive.

You have made the accusation that my position is weak.

You assert, you prove.

You no assert, you no prove.

If you pay any attention to Holbling's statements, his are loaded with ad hominisms inre 'cooking the books', etc., which moderators have not/do not challenge.

Sometime it is necessary to fight fire with fire.

And sometimes it is fun to fight ad hominems with ad hominems, but, similarly as Babe Ruth said "It ain't braggin' if you can do it," when true statements are made inre ad individual's inability to understand and/or his integrity in admitting he is wrong inre facts, then they ain't ad hominems.

[Jesse]

And sometimes it is fun to fight ad hominems with ad hominems, but, similarly as Babe Ruth said "It ain't braggin' if you can do it," when true statements are made inre ad individual's inability to understand and/or his integrity in admitting he is wrong inre facts, then they ain't ad hominems. Not according to the rules of this board. Another moderator has already requested that all participants in this dis