Ginkgo wrote: ↑Sat Aug 22, 2020 3:20 am
The difference between philosophical speculation and scientific speculation is that with scientific speculation the empirical evidence is out there.
"Out there?"
"Out there?"
How do you know what's "out there," with no empirical evidence? I mean, the proponents of the 10 or so current quantum theories are asking us to believe that evidence they admit
they do not currently have will magically appear eventually. Why should we believe that?
Heck, why would THEY believe that?
This is why it starts to look ideologically-driven.
Believing in things that are completely non-evidentary is superstition. Scientific hypothesis requires at least a basic "apple" to fall on a basic "Newton's head" in order to justify a theory. But QM is pure speculation. How can anyone seriously suggest we take their blind hope for a promissory note that evidence is "out there" and will appear later?
There just isn't justification for that much faith. And why that much faith is even necessary should set our alarm bells off. We're being sold the Brooklyn Bridge...except in this case, Brooklyn itself isn't even known to exist.
But let us grant, for argument's sake, that QM evidence eventually appears. If it turns out to be a "something" rather than a "nothing," then it hasn't done anything to abate the seriousness of the infinite-actual-causal-regress problem. So then, it just turns out to be irrelevant to the question of whether or not a First Cause is necessary.