Howdy MUH,

You wrote:

Apr 15, 2012 -- 8:06PM, MUH wrote:

I think I gave a perfectly decent, albeit terse, account of entropy and why it appears to be universally uni-directional.

Actually you did not explain why energy moves from higher to lower states. You only described its statistical likelihood. And even then the likelihood is based on the assumption that (1) the system had an initial state of high order and that (2) this highly ordered energy cannot maintain its order. Something causes it to change from its initial configuration. This is where laws come in, not mere probabilities. If there's an initial state of order for energy, if something causes it to continuously change from its configuration at any given point in time, and if random configuration is the only mode of that change (note: mode is different from cause), then and only then can the directionality of entropy from higher to lower states be universally explained by the virtue of probability.

However, that states of disorder are statistically more probable in random configuration in no way explains why energy disperses from a highly improbable initial state of order. Within the Planck Epoch the entire universe was nothing but one supremely ordered state. According to statistical probability, it's highly improbable that an infinitely ordered singularity ever existed as the initial point of entropy. Therefore, the probabilistic explanation alone does not account for the direction of entropy from high to low states. Alone it would only account for the most probable scenario of a disordered starting point, which we know by empirical evidence not to have been the case in the known universe.

Only an objective universal law explains why energy moves from higher to lower states. This universal law is called second law of thermodynamics. The universe as a whole is configured in such a way (whether self-configured or other-configured, that's another debate) as to cause energy to disperse from an initial state of order. The second law describes this (universal, not just energy-specific) configuration and hence involves much more than a mere description of the inherent properties of energy. Yet the claim by the most vocal atheists here is that energy inherently behaves that way. In fact, the claim is even more radical. The claim is that energy is everything and that it simply exists without any reason whatsoever. Energy-pantheism would be an apt description of such a firm belief-system. It represents a belief that cannot be established by looking merely at the facts. A scientist will always look for causes first and only if he is unable to explain something by causation, he will deem the matter unresolved. He will never make a final conclusion that there's simply no cause. When it comes to energy-dispersal towards colder regions (entropy), science has indeed found its cause: A universal law which describes how the universe is configured in a way as to make energy always behave in a certain way.

In sum, the second law of thermodynamics describes the states of order or disorder that energy finds itself in, the path or directionality towards disorder that energy constantly finds itself on, and the passage of time and expansion in space that energy undergoes. These properties are all external to energy and, quite rightly, were described by Blü as thermodynamic circumstances. Circumstances are always external to the the entities subject to them. It is these external properties, together with energy, that the laws of thermodynamics describe when they explain entropy. Not just some inherent properties of energy. These properties determine energy's behaviour causally. The behaviour is not random. The laws of thermodynamics explain these universal circumstances and properties which causally affect energy's behaviour.

The contention under dispute was that energy's inherent properties are a sufficient reason for its existence. It was claimed that energy needs no external reasons to exist. I responded by stating that to say so is to make a faith-based claim, not a scientific one. The discussion on that theme ended forthwith and another claim was made: All causality involves energy-transfer, therefore Hatcher can't be right if he claims that there's something beyond energy that causes it. I responded by stating that the thermodynamic circumstances surrounding energy contain no energy that we know of. Yet, according to the second law, they determine the behaviour of energy. Indeed, how could they involve energy-transfer if they determine energy-transfer. Moreover, as long as it is logical to set forth the proposition "G is the cause of E (energy)" there is no logical necessity for a cause to involve energy.

It was then advanced that the observation of light demonstrates that energy exists and needs no other thing for its existence. I responded that an observation of light demonstrates as poorly that energy's inherent properties are a sufficient reason for its existence as my observation of this computer screen in front of me serves as a demonstration of its self-sufficiency. I know for a fact that the computer screen in front of me was built in a factory and hence its inherent properties are nowhere near a sufficient reason for its existence. By looking at it I can in no way plausibly conclude that its inherent properties are a sufficient reason for its existence. I also stated that to rely on such weak inductions makes one far more gullible a believer in energy-pantheism than Hatcher is in the existence of a minimalist G.

Next it was claimed that causal links are observed. Billiard-balls were given as an example. I responded by demonstrating how the billiards example doesn't involve an observation of a causal link. It involves an inference of a causal link between billiard-balls, based on the logical principles Hatcher has mentioned. If A → B holds, then it can never occur that an observation of A holds without the observation of B holding. We infer that A (ball P strikes ball Q) causes B (Q moves and P slows down) after we've made repeated observations that B seems to happen right after A. However, it is logically possible that all of this is just an incredible coincidence and B just happens to occur right after A without any causal connection whatsoever. After repeated experiments however we make a strong induction that a causal link must exist, just as after repeated experiments physicists make the strong induction that universally applicable objective laws exist which causally determine the behaviour of energy (without any energy-transfer and time-delay whatsoever).

Then it was claimed that Ockham's Razor favours energy-pantheism. I responded by stating that so far the resident atheists here haven't even produced a simple plausible explanation of how energy inherently causes entropy, let alone a complex one. In fact, the question was consistently evaded. And yet we are expected to believe that there's a simple explanation for energy explaining all existence when we are not even offered a scientifically plausible hypothesis as to how energy explains entropy.

G is described in Hatcher's proof as a self-caused non-composite cause of all existence. Energy-pantheism is far more radical and complex a claim from the viewpoint of the Razor. Firstly, it claims that a demonstrably law-dependent phenomenon E somehow exists independently (by itself) and that it somehow causes all other existing things. However, there's no evidence that energy exists by itself and causes all other things. Energy-pantheism attaches new god-like properties to a known phenomenon E. Indeed, there's ample evidence that energy exists and that it disperses towards colder bodies due to the second law of thermodynamics. But there's simply zero evidence that energy exists by itself and causes all other existing things. There's only a somewhat fantastical and speculative claim to that effect. Hatcher's G is a far simpler theory since these properties need not be forcibly shoved into energy and explained in a complicated way as its attributes. Rather they characterize a stand-alone entity which is the cause of energy. Secondly, if we are to subscribe to quantum theory, the candidate E is quantized and hence extremely composite. Therefore, Hatcher's G is far simpler than E since it is perfectly non-composite. Hatcher's position is far more simple and tenable since he is not tying his hands to employ physical terms for explaining rather wondrous properties that remain absolutely foreign to the amassed observation of all physics over the centuries (i.e. the properties of existing by itself and causing all existing things). He is simply stating (in fact proving) that wondrous properties foreign to physics belong to a wondrous entity foreign to physics.

Finally I explained that there are thousands of theories in physics which are deemed valid. All of them explain observed phenomena by causation. To assume that energy suddenly forms an exception is implausible on the basis of strong induction. Such an unquestioned and ready assumption of no-causation is purely driven by atheist bias. "Because it just exists" is not a scientifically acceptable answer. Yet it is the only answer which has been provided.

It is far less problematic to assume that such a complete and absolute property as independent existence belongs to a complete and absolute entity G rather than a provably dependent entity E. In either case, we're advancing a conjecture. If, on the other hand, we are to contend that energy doesn't exist independently (doesn't contain a sufficient reason for its own existence), nor is it made to exist (nothing else contains a sufficient reason for its existence), but it simply has no reason to exist, then by right it wouldn't exist as the Principle of Insufficient Reason states.

Once more, here's a recap of Hatcher's proof (from post #398):

No one on this thread has given a satisfactory counter-argument to Hatcher's proof. A resident atheist Jiwe, a logician like Hatcher, agrees. He too may not find Hatcher's proof "satisfying", but we're not here to talk about our feelings. He agrees that Hatcher's logic is sound.

If something objectively exists (evident truth), and if that something is a composite entity (the apparent universe), and if something cannot come out of nothing (i.e. cannot be uncaused), it must, in the absence of other causes, contain within itself a sufficient reason for its own existence (i.e. be self-caused). Since it is logically impossible that a composite entity be self-caused (principle of limitation), something non-composite within it must be self-caused while being the cause of all the non-self-caused components of that composite entity. In other words, if we can accept the above 'ifs', then there must be G (or alternatively a committee of g's) that is the cause of all existence while remaining itself self-caused. Atheism is simply not on the plate.

If we do not accept one or several of the above ifs, we must offer a logical alternative to the 'if' in question which is more plausible. So far I haven't heard of any.

(Uninformed appeals to radioactive decay simply won't do. Quantum vacuum, according to experimental physics, is everything but absolute nothingness. Virtual particles pop out of vacuum energy by borrowing that energy. They do not pop out of absolute non-existence. Neither is radioactive decay uncaused. It is stochastic, meaning unpredictable. Unpredictable does not mean uncaused. Who claims it does, must prove his claim.)

An atheist who actually professionally understands both formal logic and physics has already given his verdict on the general outcome of our little debate. It is fully understandable why the verdict displeases the resident atheists here and provokes choral ad hominae against me, other theists as well as the said atheist who doesn't happen to belong to the regular raucous rout here. Due to failure to admit demonstrable inability to bury Hatcher with any logical precision and without recourse to one's own concocted strawmen which are attacked in place of Hatcher, cheap misrepresentations and obfuscations of the actual course of the debate remain the only option. Dishonest though it is.

The previous post by Blü demonstrates that he understood neither the definitions of the concepts used by Hatcher nor my reasoned responses to his questions. Or if he understood them, then he is deliberately obfuscating them. Never one's own understanding or lack thereof is honestly acknowledged.

The regular crowd on these boards have formed a camaraderie which emboldens them to spout venom in concert and to virtually vie in insult. Jiwe, their fellow-atheist, and the only logician on board, understood Hatcher's argument fully and pronounced his verdict. It is understandable that it doesn't feel nice to be seen by a qualified referee as a loser of an argument. But the simple fact remains: Hatcher's proof hasn't been disproven on this thread. At least not by counter-arguments that haven't been shown to be either misinformed and hence misdirected, internally contradictory, ad hominae or dogmatic. 

We are likely to witness a chorus of denial and ad hominae to follow this message. Let it demonstrate the said inability to actually address Hatcher's argument in any novel way which hasn't been appropriately addressed already. As I said earlier, neither the accuser nor the defendant are in any position to pronounce an impartial verdict on the "outcome" of this debate.

I'm going on a two-week overseas trip tomorrow. I will return to any post that offers a novel and previously unaddressed counter-argument.

Kind regards,

LilWabbit

Apr 16, 2012 -- 4:31AM, Lilwabbit wrote:

An atheist who actually professionally understands both formal logic and physics has already given his verdict on the general outcome of our little debate.

And other atheists here who both understand formal logic and physics remain, just like him, utterly unconvinced by Hatcher's pathetic little argument.

Lilwabbit

I'm going on a two-week overseas trip tomorrow.

Not just a good move, but wonderful timing!

Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:26AM, IDBC wrote:

Howdy Buddy 

Seven months and 585 posts later and still the proof is...being debated.    

Why do you think that is? 

"HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU"

And Howdy to you too! I've got a reason to like your last post, but you may not think it valid. In reality it don't matter to me, i'm just tellin' you what the truth is, regardless what you believe, of that you can be sure of.

In the Surahs of the Noble Qur'an it's stated quite clearly that some will understand . . .

and others will never get it through their head! That's just the way it goes, when you know how the plan works.

I agree what you in much that you've posted, and would simply ask if you agree with what Stephen is Hawking about Nothing created everything? Some people believe he's the smartest man alive.

I can't say that I'm him, but it's true that I've tested as a mastermind, and in reality I've mastered my mind - but I didn't do it all alone.

While Stephens mind is full of the Nothing he is Hawking, in my mid God is Reason. 
Does this Nothing that Stephen is Hawking give him peace of mind though?

I know I've got mine. 

Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:26AM, IDBC wrote:

Seven months and 585 posts later and still the proof is...being debated.   

Why do you think that is?

"HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU"

Apr 17, 2012 -- 7:18PM, jesus2point3 wrote:

And Howdy to you too! I've got a reason to like your last post, but you may not think it valid.

What is the reason that you like my last post?

I won't know if it is valid unless I know what it is? 

Apr 17, 2012 -- 7:18PM, jesus2point3 wrote:

In reality it don't matter to me, i'm just tellin' you what the truth is, regardless what you believe, of that you can be sure of. 

If it doesn't matter to you wht are you telling me what the truth is? 

What I  know is the truth is that you believe you know the truth.  

Apr 17, 2012 -- 7:18PM, jesus2point3 wrote:

In the Surahs of the Noble Qur'an it's stated quite clearly that some will understand . . .

and others will never get it through their head! That's just the way it goes, when you know how the plan works.

And what precisely did Muhammad say that Allah said are the reasons? 

Just because Muhammad said doesn't make it true. 

Apr 17, 2012 -- 7:18PM, jesus2point3 wrote:

I agree what you in much that you've posted, and would simply ask if you agree with what Stephen is Hawking about Nothing created everything?

Recite!  Recite what Stephen Hawikns said about Nothing created everything. 

Apr 17, 2012 -- 7:18PM, jesus2point3 wrote:

Some people believe he's the smartest man alive.

Some people believe in UFO's.   

Some people believe the Isa bin Mariuam is the Son of God. 

Some people even believe that Muhammad was a prophet. 

And some people don't.  

Is he a mastermind like you?  

While Stephen Hawkins is a very intelligent man that does not mean he is infallible.  Even as an astrophycist.  

Unlike you or Muhammad. 

Apr 17, 2012 -- 7:18PM, jesus2point3 wrote:

I can't say that I'm him, but it's true that I've tested as a mastermind, and in reality I've mastered my mind - but I didn't do it all alone.

I am really impressed! 

Apr 17, 2012 -- 7:18PM, jesus2point3 wrote:

While Stephens mind is full of the Nothing he is Hawking, in my mid God is Reason. Does this Nothing that Stephen is Hawking give him peace of mind though?

I know I've got mine.

You know you have got a mid ?