Atheist Q and A

I'm not sure this question even makes sense. How does what I do in the lab affect what happened in the past..?

OK say when the first nucleotide was being made (just for explanations sake) the chances of the molecules needed to make it coming and reacting together was 1%.
When you made the conditions for this to happen in the lab yourself it was a 10% chance of it forming in that lab because of your human input.
There is quite a difference in the probabilities so isn't really representative.

But the proponent of of simultaneous causation doesn't say that the cause happened outside of the universe or outside of time. You've simply misunderstood. With regards to time, simultaneous equation would happen at the first moment of time.

Now, you then move to appeal to a lack of cause and effect within quantum mechanics (you appeal to the break down of general relativity and how the relevant question of cause and effect, with regards to the origin of the universe, must be framed within the context of quantum mechanics). The problem is that it's far from clear that cause and effect does not apply at the quantum level. There are many interpretations of quantum mechanics, they all give exactly the same answer to every measurement. Now you say 'I am arguing science here. This is an argument from direct observation and suggestion by mathematical theory'. Then by your own parameters all interpretations of quantum mechanics are equally correct. Though, some interpretations are completely deterministic. By your own parameters of observation and mathematics, how do you argue 'cause and effect cease to exist on a tiny scale'?

The notion of causation is studied within metaphysics. Of you want to talk meaningfully of causation, you're going to have to fashion a philosophical hat to use when you need it. Your example of Einstein vs Kant isn't really fitting, it's more like Hume which suits you. An ardent empiricist who cannot take causation to be real in any true sense. Hume argued that it was impossible for human beings to know that the cause and effect relationship is real in any "thick" or interesting sense. He said, first, that our only concept of causality is that of constant conjunction--that B always follows A. There was, according to Hume, no other kind of deep causality to be had, though he found this an unsatisfactory position. He thought he was stuck with it. Worse still, Hume argued that it was impossible to know even that B _would_ always follow A, since that inference was based on induction, and induction could not (Hume thought) be rationally justified. It rested, he thought, on a kind of bare posit of the uniformity of nature.

Even if we focus in on the question of quantum mechanics and causation, it's a fascinating question that we haven't answered yet. The boring answer most give is a kind of middle ground - the belt of causation is loosened at the quantum level, but exists nonetheless. But this is most likely a way to sit on the fence and accept for sides of the argument. What you need to realise, is that any appeal to quantum mechanics to weaken the causal principle has to argue philosophical notions along with the science. If the deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics are true, then causation is not affected. But even if the indeterminant ones are true, the causal principle is only weakened if the indeterminacy has ontological significance. If the indeterminacy only has epistemological significance, it affects the causal principle little. For example, if Heisenberg's indeterminacy is understood not as describing the events themselves but rather our knowledge of the events, the Causal Principle still holds.




Posted from TSR Mobile

OK say when the first nucleotide was being made (just for explanations sake) the chances of the molecules needed to make it coming and reacting together was 1%.
When you made the conditions for this to happen in the lab yourself it was a 10% chance of it forming in that lab because of your human input.
There is quite a difference in the probabilities so isn't really representative.

Or Matthew and the swine with Sea of Galilee (8:28)

Get Richard Fenyman's QED out of the library. I'm reading it to!

How do you prove that your mother is actually your mother?

I have this!
Will read it over the summer when I'm done with my exams.

Not sure you're in the right thread....

Its says a Q and A, and so I asked a Q.

How do you prove that your mother is actually your mother?

Get Richard Fenyman's QED out of the library. I'm reading it to!

No not at all because the points is that to make them in the lab you use the same conditions that would have existed on the early Earth meaning it is representative, if it wasn't then it wouldn't be taken seriously by scientists.

I assume you could compare the mitochondrial DNA to find out whether your mother is your actual mother?

I do not know how to do it, neither do I have the tools. So what can be done about it??

You personally don't need to be a genetics scientist, you can submit a DNA sample to one of these clinics and they will do it for you...

Why do I have to trust them?

Lol sorry? I was making a reference to something of Feynman's?

You don't have to, but what reason would you have to distrust them, they have nothing to gain by lying and it's not down to their opinion anyway, but genetic information that proves the link.