Interview with Rick Gervais on Atheism and religions

[Walt Zingmatilder]

According to what I've read in popular accounts of modern physics, cause, effect, contingency, necessity etc. all disappear at the quantum level, where things pop into and out of existence with no prior cause, the cause and effect that we see at the everyday level being statistical, not absolute. Furthermore, the big bang, in its ultimate origin, was a quantum event. Therefore, may it not be that the universe just popped into existence for no reason? I dare say I've completely misunderstood the science, so I post under correction.

I wonder if the appearance AND disappearance is significant here. Of course. Something which exists and then doesn't isn't rare in the universe since that is the condition of everything we see and we call these temporary things contingent things.

What that does to the idea that we can't say that anything is contingent you'd better ask Nearly Sane.

[Nearly Sane]

According to what I've read in popular accounts of modern physics, cause, effect, contingency, necessity etc. all disappear at the quantum level, where things pop into and out of existence with no prior cause, the cause and effect that we see at the everyday level being statistical, not absolute. Furthermore, the big bang, in its ultimate origin, was a quantum event. Therefore, may it not be that the universe just popped into existence for no reason? I dare say I've completely misunderstood the science, so I post under correction.

My take is that the science is based around a set of assumptions. Maybe everything at a quantum level does obey cause and effect bit we don't have the tools to establish that. Maybe nothing on a day to day level is based on cause and effect bit we just use assumptions and tools that lead us to think that. Maybe 2 things that look exactly the same, 1 is based on cause and effect, the other isn't.

[Nearly Sane]

I wonder if the appearance AND disappearance is significant here. Of course. Something which exists and then doesn't isn't rare in the universe since that is the condition of everything we see and we call these temporary things contingent things.

What that does to the idea that we can't say that anything is contingent you'd better ask Nearly Sane.

If we can establish no apparent cause on what basis would we call it contingent?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If we can establish no apparent cause on what basis would we call it contingent?

on them not being self sustaining and that their state in existence is affected by observation.

[Nearly Sane]

on them not being self sustaining and that their state in existence is affected by observation.

That doesn't show cause which you would need to do for it being contingent. I don't think you're clear on what you mean by 'self sustaining', or why it's a requirement for something not be contingent. Just another assertion from you
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That doesn't show cause which you would need to do for it being contingent. I don't think you're clear on what you mean by 'self sustaining', or why it's a requirement for something not be contingent. Just another assertion from you

Would you say the that this observation forces us to abandon the principle of sufficient reason?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That doesn't show cause which you would need to do for it being contingent. I don't think you're clear on what you mean by 'self sustaining', or why it's a requirement for something not be contingent. Just another assertion from you

Sorry I'm still working on nothing comes from nothing I didn't know that it's been discovered there is an actual nothing

[Nearly Sane]

Would you say the that this observation forces us to abandon the principle of sufficient reason?

I would say it's an assumption itself, and not a proven absolute that you can base an argument on.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry I'm still working on nothing comes from nothing I didn't know that it's been discovered there is an actual nothing

This reads as a complete non sequitur to my post.