After you show where @T_aquaticus uses pseudoscience. Apologize for that and you’re on.
I’ve waited long enough. When are these papers being addressed?
I think I’m going to comfortably conclude, at this point, that you will refuse to address those papers at all cost. Even if I can’t convince you now, you don’t seem to have conceded a single thing in the entirety of the discussion, it’s enough to plant that seed of doubt in your understanding.
Radioactive decay is a product of instability. An atom occupies an amount of energy too high to be indefinitely occupied. The movement of the protons and neutrons in the nucleus is sufficiently unstable such that the movement of the particles is more likely, given a certain period of time, to eject. There is absolutely a reason as to why we have decay and it can be described in probabilistic terms. In fact, we even know the force responsible for decay. It’s called the weak force, one of the four fundamental forces in the universe.
So is it caused? I know what the weak force does. It doesn’t answer the question. You can’t. Because you know what the answer is.
It’s caused by instability. Do YOU know the answer?
“Unstable nuclei cause nuclear decay.”
What instability? Instability in what? What causes that? What is responsible for the timing of the ‘instability’?
“What instability?”
Instability in the nucleus due to the unequal number of protons and neutrons.
“Instability in what?”
Instability in the nucleus.
“What causes that?”
That’s like saying “what causes instability when two magnets are too close to each other in their positive sides”. The repulsive forces are too strong for the system to be held together. That’s what causes it. The strength of repulsion in the forces.
“What is responsible for the timing of the instability?”
What’s responsible is how long the attractive forces can hold it together before it tends to give out under the pressure of the repulsive forces.
In other words you don’t know. That’s because it’s acausal.
While ultimately, you’re too brick-minded to be able to make progress with, it seems that this conversation has benefited me because 1) I’ve done sufficient research to find several papers which describe the causal structure of quantum mechanics 2) I’ve further done the research and found descriptions behind the causal background of radioactive decay. I had neither before this. Ultimately, a good use of my time.
1 Like
Wrong. As in your projection of pseudoscience.
God’s loving providence is, but you find it irrational. Your loss.
(Is it irrational to understand that the Potter can work with clay or that the Refiner can use fire to advantage, the Creator intervene in his creation? Hardly.)
God’s providence (as in ‘evolutionary providentialism’) can be ‘ordinary’* without any particularly unexpected or notable occurrences can still be life changing. From my reading the other night:
In Lydia’s conversion there are many points of interest. It was brought about by providential circumstances. She was a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, but just at the right time for hearing Paul we find her at Philippi; providence, which is the handmaid of grace, led her to the right spot.
It’s largely about timing and placing. I’m sure Lydia was thankful.
*Unlike the several accounts of God’s providence I (and one by Glenn Morton) have related elsewhere in this forum, perhaps [mis]leading to the impression that all instances of Father’s interventions must include something surprising.
I certainly don’t want to have your kind of wooden rationality. Is it rational to believe a man rose from the dead? No problem if the Creator can intervene in his creation, though.
No reply needed.
Nope, I’m not.
Why do you think this is pseudoscience? Are you aware that many highly credentialed and influential physicists are pursuing these areas of research?
So the Earth is rock, which means there couldn’t be any rocks before the Earth formed. Is that correct?
1 Like
Why do you think this is pseudoscience? Are you aware that many highly credentialed and influential physicists are pursuing these areas of research?
…
I said what you’re saying is pseudoscience. Not the field of quantum mechanics. The difference between pseudoscience and science is that one is a bad imitation of the other.
So the Earth is rock, which means there couldn’t be any rocks before the Earth formed. Is that correct?
The incoherence of this analogy is hard to overstate. Space isn’t analogous to matter, something you can just chop up to make more of or made of specific stuff in a specific way that can be “replicated” elsewhere. Space is that elsewhere. The only way for this nonsense to find sense is by baselessly supposing a multiverse, but then you need to explain where the multiverse came from. Why did the multiverse begin to exist? Eventually, you run into a dead end, where the misrepresentation of quantum mechanics ceases. In quantum mechanics, singularities don’t magically pop out of non existence. Small quantities of energy and matter rapidly fluctuate, back and forth. There is no explanation for an origin of the universe in that. That is what you call “pseudoscience”.
I don’t see why this would be the case. You can determine proximal causes without needing to know ultimate origins. I don’t have to explain the ultimate origin of the universe in order to explain how clouds form. I see no reason why there couldn’t be a spacetime that existed prior to our universe, and in fact there are many theories out there that put forward that very idea, such as black holes budding out into new universes:
The same problems would also exist for WLC and God based explanations. Where did God come from? Why did God begin to exist?