I was not saying there is no cause. I am saying you can make up many causes for any events. But there is no way to prove which cause is the correct cause objectively.
Think of the first cause. How many possible first causes have been inferred, and put forward as the truths by scientists, theologians and philosophers? Which one is the right one? Why?
No. There is NO such thing as ‘our universe’. There is only this One and only Universe, only. Full stop. Everything that does happen, or even appears to happen, it could be said, occurs within this One and only Universe.
What do you mean by ‘mindful’, exactly?
But, in a way, I would answer with a ‘Yes’.
Although human beings have the ability to choose, or ‘free will’, everything that happens must happen as it does and could not have happened any other way, because what will happen was ‘determined’ to happen.
In every period, things can be called ‘modern’, but to do so really is NOT correct. What is “understood”, and that word is used very loosely, at any period is not ‘modern’ at all to any further or new/er understanding that comes later.
For example, the claim;
Is not modern at all.
At any given moment, what is happening and occurring is the only way things could be. This is simply because of WHAT the Universe is made up of, exactly, and because of HOW the Universe works, exactly.
For anyone who fights for or against ‘determinism’ or ‘free will’ does not have the proper and Correct definition for those words.
Were the words and definitions you provided not open to interpretation?
Another great question.
The answer is with everyone’s agreement and acceptance.
In a way, this shouldn’t really need saying. Not for complicated and deep philosophical reasons, but for a very simple one. We generally use the word “Universe” to describe and refer to everything that exists. Everything. And so the above words are correct by definition, despite their obvious (to me 
) truth and value. 
Because you said, “There is, and can only be, an infinite causal chain”, and you haven’t given a proof.
I was expanding on my answer to the question you asked.
Again, “absolutely” is meaningless to me in this context, so I’m suspicious you’re reading something into my statement that I do not accept. I don’t categorize beliefs as “absolute” or not. The strength of my belief is a function of the strength of my justification. I provided my justification for this belief. I noted that the justification is not a mathematical proof and that it is falsifiable. So of course I’m open to being wrong, but I haven’t seen a rational basis for your alternative, much less the proof you need to show that “there can only be” an infinite causal chain. I’ve only seen assertions.
I was answering the question you asked, as I understood it. If I misunderstood your question, then elaborate on what you’re seeking.
You’re making a false assumption, that laws of nature would have to account for the initial state. That assumption entails a contradiction: it implies the initial state was caused by something prior, but there is nothing prior to an initial state. It exists as brute fact.
That’s approximately what I’m saying. Laws of nature account for change. The initial state does not reflect a change, because there was no prior state. Laws of nature would have to be present in the initial state to account for the subsequent changes.
We also have the word “multiverse” that refers to the set of all universes, so the semantics isn’t as clear-cut as you’re suggesting it is.
Well, yes. But if one wished to specifically include, or exclude, multiverses, it would be best to say so explicitly, wouldn’t you say? I would.
Love how you put ‘you’ in scare quotes. The only place I typed ‘different worlds’ appears to be a reply (62) to the OP’s question “What does MWI mean?”. The context is utterly clear in that reply, which is MWI, so no idea why you feel the need to ask this.
There are obviously plenty of other contexts for other worlds.
An interpretation is valid if 1) it makes the same predictions as the view of which it is an interpretation, and 2) if it is logically self consistent.
See? That’s an interpretation. It makes no contradictory predictions, but it is on very thin logical ground. I mean, brain-in-vat is also a valid interpretation, but similarly not a very probable one. It solves no problems that other interpretations do.
MWI is actually not incompatible with your assertion since it does not posit other universes.
There is but the one universal wave function, not multiples.
The misconception is the part I quoted immediately above where I talked about your misconception. You edited that away, so I see little point in putting it back.
Fine, but you talked about worlds being created by adult human beings, which seemed irrelevant as a reply about MWI.
An assertion being irrefutable doesn’t make it fact. You need to refute the alternatives. Again, I can assert that my opinions have all been justified, which is irrefutable. But that doesn’t make it fact.
As for my opinion, I think your ‘fact’ is naive and improbable.
If it’s a claim of the existence of a proof, without any statement or link to such proof, then yes, it’s an empty claim, essentially a rant. This is a justifiable claim, unlike so many of them. All you have to do is show the proof that is good enough for you despite it being trivially shown to be fallacious.
A little better. A claim that you can do this, but still no post, and no link. I can’t shoot down an empty claim.
There are whole sites with countless articles each proving that Einstein’s relativity is wrong. It’s an interesting if not very difficult exercise to find the error in each. Want a link to this site? It mostly concerns relativity, not determinism or multiple universes/worlds and such.
Ooh, a common statement. It helps to know where you stand.
A proof is only as valid as its premises. Evidence can have multiple interpretations, but cannot be ignored, so I would hesitate to assert that it is something open to being refuted.
LOL indeed. Einstein again, in response to a book entitled “100 autors against relativity” quipped “If I were wrong, it would only have taken one”.
Exactly. It’s commonly but not universally accepted, and nobody (worth hiring) claims it’s been proven. There’s just an awful lot of evidence is all, similar to evidence of other worlds (no specific kind) despite lack of proof of same.
It doesn’t have a meaningful size, so it would be a naive claim to say the size is expanding or growing larger. The evidence only suggests that it is getting less dense over time, and only a Milne universe seems to be able to explain that without positing expansion, but Milne is a massless model, so it doesn’t work with matter around.
Also, I used the word ‘eternal’ in ‘the way’ I meant it.
What it has to do with ‘determinism’ is what I said and wrote about it.
How wonderfully circular, both clarifying nothing.
It does when discussing physics with somebody who doesn’t know their physics nearly as much, which includes a great majority of pre-20th century philosophers. On the other hand, I’m no expert. I defer to those that obviously know their stuff. I’m a moderator on a science forum attached to a radio science show/podcasts, but that was granted more for my abilities to deal with people than with my technical knowledge.
But you don’t meet that. You’re asserting all kind of stuff without backing any of it with logical reasoning. Evidence suggest this is just another falsifiable assertion.
- A theory is NOT the Truth of things. A theory is nothing really more than just another presumption or guess.
Flat out wrong. A theory makes testable predictions, so it is far more than a guess. If empirical measurements contradict a theory, the theory is wrong. A guess is just an opinion lacking the need to bother justifying it.
- The big bang and black holes are certainly not ‘bounds’ at all.
And yet no other description of them seems to offer an alternative.
You use of ‘certainly’ implies that my comments about them have been falsified. Another empty claim. If you mean only that you personally are certain of this, well, that I can accept. We can classify that as your guess: an opinion lacking the need to bother justifying it.
Probably because it’s the claim of the OP, not me.
So by writing all that, I presume you also have made no attempt to figure out what this topic is supposed to be discussing.
By all means sure. Evidence: The only mention of determinism and its inescapable problems (which would be on-track discussion) made in your lengthy reply to me has been asking me to write down my problem with it, when I never said I had one. This mention was only made due to my comment pointing out how your previous posts to me made no mention of the determinism topic at all.
From other posts:
I agree with this.
Much of the discussion seems to presume that an event has a single prior cause, all kind of implied by the term ‘chain of events’ instead of ‘network of events’. @Corvus (who replied to the above comment) is notably in this camp.
There are non-deterministic interpretations that allow this. The radioactive decay of a nucleus is a potential example of an uncaused event, as is virtual pair production. So I can’t claim that such interpretations are correct, but I can claim ‘could be’.
Again, the reason why ‘that number’ so-called ‘came out’ is because;
Very simply be-cause ‘that card’ was ‘the one’ that ended up in ‘the place’ that a card was picked from, obviously.
And, what caused ‘that card’ to ‘be there’ is because of the causes I provided above.
I have done this again in this post and as well as in a prior post to this one.
It just proves the causes you are making up for the event is not meaningful or intelligible at all. It is like saying, why did the window break, when stone hit it? And saying, well because you picked up the stone, and threw it. The stone hit the window, and it broke.
What is the point of saying the details of event, which everyone knows? Because card number 10 was selected, so card number 10 came up from the pile, is not anything new or useful to anyone asking the reason for the cause.
Someone else could easily claimed it was the number 10 card pushed itself to the top, because it wanted to be picked up. Or a religious person would have said, God wanted the number 10 card to be picked up.
In the window breaking example, someone else could easily said, the window breaking was the cause for the event, the rock has moved from the ground to the inside of the room through the window.
You could say, your cause is more smarter than the other guy’s claims for the cause, but it is your word against theirs.
If these are the details of causes, then what is the point of finding and knowing the causes, which are all self-evident or unintelligible, and totally not helpful for any practical purpose?
You can make up many different causes for an event, but conclusively proving which cause is the correct cause for the event would be very difficult, if not impossible.
If you cannot prove which cause is the correct cause for the event, then does it make sense to claim every event in the world has cause?
Wasn’t Hume correct in saying, causes are your imagination or habits formed from seeing the constant conjunction between event1 and event2? Causality doesn’t exist in the world.
Just like you also can make up many causes for any event.
you are absolutely free to to make up any cause, but are you able to prove which cause caused you to believe, absolutely, that there is absolutely no way to prove which cause is the correct cause of this belief of yours here, objectively?
If you cannot objectively prove which cause caused you to believe such a thing as you are here, then could what caused you to believe such a thing just a personal subjective opinion of yours only?
The ‘first cause’ in regards to what, exactly?
There was no ‘first cause’ as in there was nothing prior, obviously.
I have absolutely no idea nor clue. Were you really expecting ‘me’ to know?
If absolutely anyone puts forward a so-called ‘first cause’ as though there was absolutely nothing prior, then ‘that one’ has not thought through what they put forward thoroughly or even at all, really.
Again, there is NO ‘first cause’ as though there was nothing prior for the simple fact that the Universe has already been proven to be eternal, as well as infinite by the way.
The definition for the ‘Universe’ word, Everything; All there is: Totality is exactly the same definition I was thinking of and using above.
So, now, and again, there is NO such a thing as ‘our universe’, obviously.
Just because I have not yet provided a proof in no way means that I am rejecting any so-called ‘unprovable infinite past’.
Are you claiming that your belief here that 'an infinite past is unprovable, is:
Just so you become aware, the Universe being infinite has already been proven, well to me anyway.
Do you believe that this could be possible?
Okay, but your expansion also still has absolutely nothing at all to do with me nor with what I have said and meant.
Okay, fair enough. So, what is ‘your justification’ for ‘your belief’ that there is a so-called ‘finite past’, exactly?
And, how strong is ‘your belief’, exactly?
At least you are open to the fact that ‘your justification’ could be False all along.
By the way, the reason people cannot see ‘rational bases’ for things that oppose or are contrary to what they believe or presume is true is that their belief or presumption does not allow them to ‘see’ anything that opposes or contradicts their belief or presumption. This phenomenon is also known as ‘confirmation bias’.
In fact, looking at a ‘stepping’ process in ‘the past’ or ‘the future’ has and will only continue to lead people astray and not help them at all in finding the ‘proof’ of whether the Universe, Itself, is infinite or not.
Okay.
Obviously, you were answering one of the two questions I asked you for clarification, as ‘you’ understood it, but again, you appear to have completely misunderstood the one question of mine that you attempted to answer here.
you wrote;
I asked two questions. Firstly;
To elaborate, you claim that the ‘laws of nature’ would have to exist in some imagined so-called “initial state”. What I was asking for clarity is, 'Would the ‘laws of nature’, which you claim would have to exist in the so-called “initial state”, also have to always exist whenever the Universe exists?
But it is NOT I who is making any assumption, let alone a so-called ‘false assumption’ here.
I am trying to grasp ‘your understanding’ here.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but your belief here is;
To me, the actual contradiction here is ‘the belief’ that any thing can come from no thing, let alone the whole Everything came from absolutely nothing.
So, the assumption that there is an “initial state”, in regard to the Universe coming from nothing, entails a contradiction.
Also, and please do not forget that it is not ‘I’ who is making any assumption at all that the laws of nature would have to account for the “initial state” that you are referring to here.
And there is ‘the assumption’ that entails a REAL contradiction.
By using the words, " The “inital state” exists as ‘brute fact’," show and reveals more light on how much conviction you have in ‘your belief’ that there is no ‘infinite past’, and which you, I think, are ‘trying to’ claim you do not believe ‘absolutely’.
It would, in ‘a sense’ that there was, supposedly and allegedly, absolutely nothing at all, and then ‘that’ suddenly changed to ‘Everything’ existing, ‘all at once’, as some might say. So, it could be said and argued that the so-called “initial state” did reflect a change. (But that is not even in the issue here anyway.)
Was there not a prior state of ‘nothing’? Or, a prior state of ‘no state’, ‘no Everything’?
But, the ‘laws of nature’ would not have to be present in the ‘whatever’ created and caused the “initial state” to appear and begin the consequential chain reaction, correct?
The word ‘multiverse’ came into Existence because when the one’s who believe that the Universe began and is expanding kept getting ‘tripped up’ when ‘trying to’ work out and explain HOW the Universe could have even began?
Instead of just admitting the error of holding such an irrational, illogical, unreasonable, and nonsensical belief, they devised a ‘new idea and concept’ and named it “the multiverse”. But, for absolutely anyone who wants to ‘try to’ view things from some “multiverse” perspective:
These people who also believe that the Universe ‘began’, just like “priests” and “preachers” do, are doing the exact same things as they did. These people just do not call what created the Universe and Everything, ‘God’, they instead just made up another name and label and called ‘it’ the ‘big bang’ instead.
But, just like the “theologians” when asked, ‘Who or what is God, exactly’, or what created God, exactly?', the other religious types the “scientists” when also asked, ‘What is the big bang’, exactly,or what created the ‘big bang’, exactly? both reply, “We do not know”.
All people are essentially doing by bringing these new names and labels like “big bang”, “multiverse”, and/or “God” are, just as some might say, ‘kicking the can further down the road’.
The Universe existing always NOW is an already proved Fact, which no one could refute. But, some people just do not want to let go of what they believe is true. So, they just end up believing the ‘same thing’, even to their “deaths”.
Imagine believing that the whole entire Universe began from a so-called ‘big bang’ or a ‘human being with a beard, penis, and testicles’ but when asked but when asked for further clarification the answer you give is, “I don’t know”. Yet you, still, hang on to ‘that belief’ as though, ‘your life depended upon it’, as some say.
Is it like all of these believers “theologian” or “scientific” just believe that the Universe began and that there as a so-called “initial state” solely because it was once written in a book, “In the beginning …”. It is like that ‘these people’ just cannot let go of the belief that because ‘they’ began, and had ‘a beginning’, and that ‘everything around them’ began, and had ‘a beginning’, therefore even the Universe, Itself, ‘must of’ also began, and had ‘a beginning’.
Once more, if absolutely anyone here would like to have a Truly open and honest logically reasoned discussion, with the goal being of finally finding out what the actual and irrefutable Truth is, exactly, then please let ‘us’ have one.
Some event’s cause can be proved perhaps. But not all. The causes that you can prove could be the events which were observable empirically and repeatedly with the same effects from the same causes.
You need to understand the definition of cause here. Cause doesn’t mean some random fluke chain effect.
Cause means a concrete concept established from the repeated observation of event1 and event2. Hence having the idea of cause of event1 means you can predict the event2. If this is not the case, then you are talking about a simple fluke chain effect.
Didn’t you just prove the claim everything has cause is false?
Here is another example of another human being who can and does only ‘see’ things from its own past and own “education”.
Some of these people actually believe that whatever country and ‘cult/ure’ they were brought up and raised in provided them with the ‘one and only’ way of ‘looking at’ and ‘seeing’ things.
Just for your information, the term ‘scare quotes’ does not even exist in some ‘cult/ures’. So, ‘you’ believing that I put ‘you’ in so-called ‘scare quotes’ is absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.
I hope this gets understood.
The reason WHY ‘I’ asked ‘you’, politely, a clarifying question, or a few, was to obtain clarification and clarity, BEFORE ‘I’ start to inform that any idea of ‘many worlds’, in relation to “multiverses” is an absurd idea, from the very outset and beginning
And, as I have already pointed out, anyone can interpret anything in any way they like, and then, laughably, still call them all ‘valid interpretations’.
Once more, for you, if one has proof of something, then it is NOT ‘an interpretation’.
Is it, for example, ‘an interpretation’ that there are words on a screen before you ‘now’? Or, is it a fact that can be proven and has already been proven ‘to you’?
Any claim of ‘it is on very thin logical ground’, literally, exists in ‘that head’ only.
WHY are ‘you’ stuck on ‘interpretation’ here.
WHY can ‘you’ NOT hear that ‘the claim’ there is One Universe only’ is ‘a claim’? And then, start challenging and questioning ‘the claim’ instead.
‘you’ BELIEVING that that ‘that claim’ is only ‘an interpretation’ allows ‘you’ to keep believing that ‘your belief’ here that the Universe began and has a ‘finite state’ to be the one and only truth here.
Which, do not forget, you have aready admited and ackowledge could be False anyway.
GREAT, now ‘we’ know more about what ‘your interpretation’ of the “mwi” is.
Just so you become aware, ‘my claim’ also does not posit other universes, OBVIOUSLY.
Now,
‘I’ asked ‘you’ a clarifying question about ‘that’. So that if what I said was irrelevant, then you could have just answered the actual clarifying question I asked, which was literally about ‘its relevancy’ or not.
you even again saying, “…, which seemed irrelevant …”, only goes to show and prove just how much of what I said and meant you still misunderstand and misunderstood.
Of course not. The Fact that ‘it’ is already A Fact is what makes ‘it’ A Fact.
Once more, that the Universe is eternal has already been proven. Therefore, the claim and/or assertion that the ‘Universe is eternal’ is an already proved Fact.
The fact that the Universe being eternal has already been proven makes ‘that statement, claim, and assertion’, irrefutable. And, the proof is all that is really needed.
I already have. But this obviously does not mean that you have seen it yet.
And, ALSO AGAIN, yes ‘you’ can do such a thing if doing so pleases you. But, just because ‘you’ can assert that your opinions have all been justified, which is irrefutable, again has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I have been saying and meaning here. And, just because ‘you’ can do it, never ever means that I am doing it, obviously.
Of course not, AGAIN.
And again, is this any real reason to reject ‘my claim’, and/or believe ‘your belief’ more?
LOL Okay.
So, you not making enquiries and/or questioning, solely because you believe otherwise, is what is true and right, has no bearing on anything at all here. If another claims something, which you do not believe is true, and the other does not present the proof first, then, to you, ‘the other’ is, essentially, just ranting, correct?
LOL, LOL, LOL
So, ‘we’ have ‘another one’ who, laughbly, when ‘they’ make ‘a claim’ it, allegedly, a ‘justifiable claim’, but whenever ‘another’ makes ‘any claim’ that ‘this one’ does not believe is true, then ‘those claims’ are ‘unjustifiable claims’.