RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (36) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense: The BlogCzar Years. Er, Months., Record of all the bans and threats at UD< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2009,20:54   

Voice Coil tells me that has been silently banned from the Odds that End thread, after a brief period on moderation. As a public service, he has provided a version of his last post. As easily seen, it is clearly in violation of UD's moderation policy:*
When the sun goes down the fact remains that StephenB in 332, and again in 346, allows that certain quantum events may be uncaused.

Because the "law of causality" is silent, the only remaining source of adjudication regarding the causality/acausality of those phenomena is the science. And it so happens that the science asserts with both sound theoretical and ample empirical justification that the phenomena in question are in fact acausal.

Biped claims that StephenB's admission is a peripheral issue. But I think it central. It is an admission that there are facets of causation that ONLY the theoretical and empirical tools of science can affix, facets on which the "law of causality" is silent. Moreover we have what amounts to an admission (by omission) that other claims regarding the reach of the "law of causality" within the quantum domain (e.g. to particle decay) are made with no rationale whatsoever.

Biped likes battle metaphors, but others are more appropriate. For example, we need only find one hole in a bucket to know that it doesn't hold water. What the above establishes beyond dispute is that the premodern "law of causality" is poorly equipped to contain quantum phenomena.

With the declaration that "everything that begins to exist must have a cause," the law again comes into contact with quantum phenomena that arguably indicate otherwise. We know from the examples above that, with respect to quantum phenomena, the "law of causality" at times fails to hold water and at others is applied in an arbitrary and ad hoc manner. We also have the precedent that it is the science that must ultimately adjudicate these questions. I'll go with the science.

* Don't elicit StephenB's idiocy. To avoid that, don't interact with StephenB.

(Cross-posted from the UD thread.)

Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  1072 replies since July 29 2007,19:21 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (36) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]