Apr 15, 2012 -- 6:08AM, Blü wrote:

the radical claim that energy exists without any cause whatsoever, not even within itself (inherent properties).

The demonstration that energy exists (eg turning on the light) also demonstrates that energy's inherent properties allow it to exist.

Nobody has mentioned inherent properties of a thing not allowing something to exist. Now you're changing the contention by changing the verb. 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. The 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 conclude that its inherent properties are a sufficient reason for its existence. The fact that you're happy with such weak inductions makes you far more gullible a believer in energy-pantheism than Hatcher is in the existence of a minimalist G.

Any hypothesis or generalization which involves the existence of energy (eg the law of conservation of energy, which says you can't get rid of it even if you want to) is entitled to rely on the same notion.

No it's not and I just explained why not. The theory is undertermined by the fact. This is a basic principle of science and Popper formulated it quite aptly in these words. You keep talking about a hypothesis that is derived from observation. No theory is deductively derived from observation. Theories are competing hypotheses that are reached inductively to explain the same set of observations. Science has taught us that every set of observations is consistent with at least two mutually competing theories. Science uses various methods, not the least of which is theory-prediction, to choose the best theory consistent with the facts. The theory that entropy is determined by objective and universal laws of thermodynamics has much more predictive power than any of its alternatives. The laws of thermodynamics describe much more than just the inherent properties of energy. You should learn the previous sentence by heart.

Apr 15, 2012 -- 10:28AM, Blü wrote:

Since you say that conclusions derived from observation are incapable of explaining anything, on what basis do you assert that anything needs a cause at all?

I said theories (explaining observations) cannot be deductively derived from observation. I didn't say one shouldn't attempt to explain observations. Such explanations in science almost always set forth hypothetical causes to those observations. The fact that all known physical science attempts to discover the causes of observed phenomena is a great basis in itself for first assuming causation before exploring other alternatives. The other basis was already stated. That the notion of an observed phenomenon having no cause whatsoever (not even within itself) is absurd. To claim so is to say that PIR is wrong while such a claimant often remains tellingly unwilling to demonstrate how PIR is wrong. Now, it is of course possible that reality contains absurdities, but to willingly promote absurdity as the best available scientific explanation when others also exist is more indicative of an ideological commitment than a commitment to scientific principles.

And you've still to explain how the states of order or disorder that energy finds itself in, the path towards disorder that energy constantly finds itself on, and the passage of time and expansion in space that energy undergoes, represent anything other than properties that are external to energy. Yet these properties are what the laws of thermodynamics describes when it explains entropy. Not just some inherent properties of energy.

Apr 15, 2012 -- 12:29PM, Blü wrote:

Not until #572. long after you'd rejected my explanation of entropy on the ground that it was 'weakly' inductive and started the present argument,  Incidentally, if we go with the definition of 'weak induction' implied by your description of 'strong induction', 'weak induction' is the only kind of induction known to science.

I don't imply definitions. I either define or expect you to know the definition. If you do not know what weak induction and strong induction are, please read on them. You want me to be your encyclopaedia in addition to your debating partner. How lazy of you. And not a single successful scientific theory is based on weak induction.

Apr 15, 2012 -- 12:29PM, Blü wrote:

That the notion of an observed phenomenon having no cause whatsoever (not even within itself) is absurd.

Only because induction - what you called 'weak induction' when you used it to dismiss my explanation of entropy - says so.

Incorrect. 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. If you have honesty in your heart, you'd admit it right now. Whereas to state that laws of physics determine universally the behaviour of energy and mass is itself a theory based on strong induction. This induced causality, in turn, involves no known energy-transfer or time-delay. Hence we have valid empirically grounded reasons to dispute your claim that all causality involves energy-transfer.

Apr 15, 2012 -- 12:29PM, Blü wrote:

You want to say that you know cause is needed because of observation and induction.

Yet you dismissed my explanation of entropy because it was based on observation, was inductive.  I assume you wish to withdraw that silly claim and apologize.

Read the above. By the way, why should anyone be morally obliged to apologize for silly claims? If that were the case, I'd be insisting for your apology until I'm blü in the face.

Apr 15, 2012 -- 12:29PM, Blü wrote:

And you've still to explain how the states of order or disorder that energy finds itself in, the path towards disorder that energy constantly finds itself on, and the passage of time and expansion in space that energy undergoes, represent anything other than properties that are external to energy.

No I don't.  I simply have to point out that entropy occurs because energy moves from the higher- to the lower-energy entity, resulting in an averaging process.

You're still just re-stating the entropic process. Your word "because" is quite simply erroneous. You should rather have stated: "Entropy is the observed movement of energy towards lower states." You're still not explaining why energy moves from higher to lower states in the absence of incoming energy. You're still evading all the tough questions while falsely accusing me of doing just that. "Because it just does" is not a scientifically acceptable answer. Yet it is the only answer you and your friends are providing.

Apr 15, 2012 -- 12:29PM, Blü wrote:

The laws of thermodynamics describe much more than just the inherent properties of energy.

They describe what energy does in thermodynamic circumstances.  But what's that got to do with causality?

Thermodynamic circumstances just happen to determine energy's behaviour causally. That's what it has got to do with causality. The behaviour is not random. The universal laws of thermodynamics explain these circumstances and movements. Even your own wording suggests (perhaps unwittingly) that the circumstances of energy are different from energy. Laws of thermodynamics describe them. Hence, the causal determinants of the behaviour of energy are external to energy and not its inherent properties. Thank you for finally acknowledging the fact.

Apr 15, 2012 -- 12:29PM, Blü wrote:

For example, I asked you -

"The principle that if there is no sufficient reason for something's being, then it will not exist. It is a significant principle in Western philosophy and science."

Is 'a reason' synonymous with 'cause' here?  If not, how is 'a reason' defined?

It is synonymous. Please refer to my post #519 in case you're having memory lapses.

Apr 15, 2012 -- 12:29PM, Blü wrote:

If it means 'cause', I ask again - how can any cause be insufficient, since all it causes is its effect, whatever that effect may be, and is obviously and perfectly sufficient to do so.

Please refer back to my post #524 and its link to definitions on necessary and sufficient cause. Please understand these definitions so that you do not need to ask again.

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

Lilwabbit

I don't imply definitions. I either define or expect you to know the definition. If you do not know what weak induction and strong induction are, please read on them. You want me to be your encyclopaedia in addition to your debating partner. How lazy of you. And not a single successful scientific theory is based on weak induction.

No doubt a good rant helps when you've said something foolish.  I hope you feel better now.

There are thousands of theories in physics which are deemed valid. All of them explain observed phenomena by causation.

All of them know causation exists by observation and induction.  That's the same way you know causation exists.  That's the absurdity in your position that you're wisely retreating from now.

Why should anyone be morally obliged to apologize for silly claims?

Because you've admitted you were wrong, both by having to be asked seven times to respond and by changing your story as a result.

"Entropy is the observed movement of energy towards lower states."

My statement was that entropy occurs because energy moves from higher energy entity to lower.  You can have no complaints about that.  

It is synonymous.

So the expression reads, "The principle that if there is no cause for something's being, then it will not exist."

That's inconsistent with quantum indeterminacy, where events occur for which there is no cause, even in principle.  A particle emitted in radioactive decay will exist without a cause, for example.  (Well, it'll have a cause in my terms, since energy will be transferred - just how and why the energy is transferred will be the mystery - but it has no cause in your terms.)