2 complementation
source | link

Particles susceptible to radioactive decomposition have taken individually a period of latency whose length is only statistically determined, followed by an instant at which they produce, as an effect, new particles resulting from their decomposition. The step from latency to the actualization of the causal potential of such a particle is ‘‘spontaneous’’ in the sense of being independent of any triggering factors external to the particle. theThe occurrence of the event at t"t" is ‘‘indeterminate’’. Nevertheless, it is preferable to avoid using the term ‘‘indeterminate’’, to the extent that it may give the erroneous impression that the occurrence of such an event is not subject to the laws of nature. Nothing determines which of several possible events occurs at instant t"t", as far as an individual radioactive particle is concerned. In this sense it can be said of a given radioactive decomposition event that it is spontaneous although it is also subject to a probabilistic law. This is possible because a probabilistic law does not directly determine the evolution of each individual particle to which it applies, but only the average evolution of a large number of such particles. In the context of a radioactive particle, the term spontaneity is meant to refer to the fact that it is indeterminate which of two possibilities becomes actual. In any case, the behaviour of radioactive particles constitutes a counterexample to the version of the principle of sufficient reason used by Hume: their behaviourThere are events that can happen at time t without something determining its occurrence at that instant.

“When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. It’s like asking directions to the edge of the earth; The Earth is a sphere; it doesn’t have an edge; so looking for it is a futile exercise.” “If the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end.” - Stephen Hawking

The question of a finite chain of causes of the universe, itself makes no sense. Why is there something rather than nothing? This is an illogical question because impose an impossible explanatory demand, to deduce the existence of something without using any existential premises. One can not completely determined by external causesgive a imaginary definition of attributes of a being as a timeless or out space being or an uncaused being, as proof of existence. If everything has a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just be the universe as God. Of all the approaches to a being’s existence, the deduction is the strategy that we would expect to be successful were there a necessary being. But there are not a valid deduction of a non logical existence, then we can conclude that there is no such necessary being.

Particles susceptible to radioactive decomposition have taken individually a period of latency whose length is only statistically determined, followed by an instant at which they produce, as an effect, new particles resulting from their decomposition. The step from latency to the actualization of the causal potential of such a particle is ‘‘spontaneous’’ in the sense of being independent of any triggering factors external to the particle. the occurrence of the event at t is ‘‘indeterminate’’. Nevertheless, it is preferable to avoid using the term ‘‘indeterminate’’, to the extent that it may give the erroneous impression that the occurrence of such an event is not subject to the laws of nature. Nothing determines which of several possible events occurs at instant t, as far as an individual radioactive particle is concerned. In this sense it can be said of a given decomposition event that it is spontaneous although it is also subject to a probabilistic law. This is possible because a probabilistic law does not directly determine the evolution of each individual particle to which it applies, but only the average evolution of a large number of such particles. In the context of a radioactive particle, the term spontaneity is meant to refer to the fact that it is indeterminate which of two possibilities becomes actual. In any case, the behaviour of radioactive particles constitutes a counterexample to the version of the principle of sufficient reason used by Hume: their behaviour is not completely determined by external causes.

Particles susceptible to radioactive decomposition have taken individually a period of latency whose length is only statistically determined, followed by an instant at which they produce, as an effect, new particles resulting from their decomposition. The step from latency to the actualization of the causal potential of such a particle is ‘‘spontaneous’’ in the sense of being independent of any triggering factors external to the particle. The occurrence of the event at "t" is ‘‘indeterminate’’. Nevertheless, it is preferable to avoid using the term ‘‘indeterminate’’, to the extent that it may give the erroneous impression that the occurrence of such an event is not subject to the laws of nature. Nothing determines which of several possible events occurs at instant "t", as far as an individual radioactive particle is concerned. In this sense it can be said of a given radioactive decomposition event that it is spontaneous although it is also subject to a probabilistic law. This is possible because a probabilistic law does not directly determine the evolution of each individual particle to which it applies, but only the average evolution of a large number of such particles. In the context of a radioactive particle, the term spontaneity is meant to refer to the fact that it is indeterminate which of two possibilities becomes actual. In any case, the behaviour of radioactive particles constitutes a counterexample to the version of the principle of sufficient reason used by Hume: There are events that can happen at time t without something determining its occurrence at that instant.

“When people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the big bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. It’s like asking directions to the edge of the earth; The Earth is a sphere; it doesn’t have an edge; so looking for it is a futile exercise.” “If the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end.” - Stephen Hawking

The question of a finite chain of causes of the universe, itself makes no sense. Why is there something rather than nothing? This is an illogical question because impose an impossible explanatory demand, to deduce the existence of something without using any existential premises. One can not give a imaginary definition of attributes of a being as a timeless or out space being or an uncaused being, as proof of existence. If everything has a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just be the universe as God. Of all the approaches to a being’s existence, the deduction is the strategy that we would expect to be successful were there a necessary being. But there are not a valid deduction of a non logical existence, then we can conclude that there is no such necessary being.

1
source | link

At the same time, we have gotten a lot of leverage in science from the ideas that everything happens for a reason. This is sometimes described as the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Aristotle also applies this idea, except that the first mover is made an exception, something which exists literally for no reason. Indeed, the emotionally negative way that "no reason" is used in common speech, as something groundless and irrational, indicates how widespread the feeling is that the idea of uncaused events is deeply dissatisfying.

The form of the principle of sufficient reason Hume uses is: No event, of whatever type, can happen at time t without something determining its occurrence at that instant. If the explanation of X is itself necessary and if it is a sufficient explanation of X, then X will be necessary, since X will be a necessary consequence of a necessary proposition. So either X is unexplained or it is necessary. But the principle of sufficient reason tells us that it can’t be that X is unexplained so it must be necessary. So principle of sufficient reason entails that all facts are necessary. Believe it if you can. God isn't free to choose to create one world rather than another. The principle is only justified in the framework of a deterministic conception of natural processes. Contemporary physical theory does not any more support such a conception.

Particles susceptible to radioactive decomposition have taken individually a period of latency whose length is only statistically determined, followed by an instant at which they produce, as an effect, new particles resulting from their decomposition. The step from latency to the actualization of the causal potential of such a particle is ‘‘spontaneous’’ in the sense of being independent of any triggering factors external to the particle. the occurrence of the event at t is ‘‘indeterminate’’. Nevertheless, it is preferable to avoid using the term ‘‘indeterminate’’, to the extent that it may give the erroneous impression that the occurrence of such an event is not subject to the laws of nature. Nothing determines which of several possible events occurs at instant t, as far as an individual radioactive particle is concerned. In this sense it can be said of a given decomposition event that it is spontaneous although it is also subject to a probabilistic law. This is possible because a probabilistic law does not directly determine the evolution of each individual particle to which it applies, but only the average evolution of a large number of such particles. In the context of a radioactive particle, the term spontaneity is meant to refer to the fact that it is indeterminate which of two possibilities becomes actual. In any case, the behaviour of radioactive particles constitutes a counterexample to the version of the principle of sufficient reason used by Hume: their behaviour is not completely determined by external causes.