@@lylef.11 Yeah, I know. Maybe the title should have been "3 things that are counterintuitive". I just wanted to make the point that intuitively true is not the same as proven true. In the future I will make a full video adressing the first cause argument, and mention those experiments (you mean like virtual particles and stuff?)
@@lylef.11 There are no experiments that violate causality. The open problem in physics regarding causality is the black-hole information paradox. Causality is intimately linked to the conservation of information. This is seemingly violated by black holes. This is such an anathema to physical understanding that there has been a concerted effort to understand or resolve the BHIP. In other words, physicists do not believe that any natural process violates causality. This is the case because violations of causality are fundamentally unpredictable. Yet physics is based on systems interacting with other systems in a causal manner. This goes back to Newton's laws of motion, and Hamilton's principle of least action. There are unpredictable processes in physical science, such as radioactive decay. However, this unpredictability is not thought to be fundamental, but rather an idiosyncracy of quantum theory due to the so-called "measurement problem".
Causality is deeply embedded in physics. It is otherwise known as the principle of unitarity or the principle of determinism. The extrapolation of the early universe to a creation event is not anywhere addressed by modern physics. It is this "creation" concept that is at error here. Creation is an anthropocentric concept. We create things, so we in turn must have been created. This has no foundation in logic. In physics, there is no creation from nothing. Therefore creation in religion has no foundation in science and no foundation in logic. By invoking a god to explain creation, you answer nothing, but simply move the question to a different level.
What does this really have to do with the original statement of the video? I think the video should have addressed experiments that violate causality.
@@lylef.11 Yeah, I know. Maybe the title should have been "3 things that are counterintuitive". I just wanted to make the point that intuitively true is not the same as proven true. In the future I will make a full video adressing the first cause argument, and mention those experiments (you mean like virtual particles and stuff?)
@@lylef.11 There are no experiments that violate causality. The open problem in physics regarding causality is the black-hole information paradox. Causality is intimately linked to the conservation of information. This is seemingly violated by black holes. This is such an anathema to physical understanding that there has been a concerted effort to understand or resolve the BHIP. In other words, physicists do not believe that any natural process violates causality.
This is the case because violations of causality are fundamentally unpredictable. Yet physics is based on systems interacting with other systems in a causal manner. This goes back to Newton's laws of motion, and Hamilton's principle of least action.
There are unpredictable processes in physical science, such as radioactive decay. However, this unpredictability is not thought to be fundamental, but rather an idiosyncracy of quantum theory due to the so-called "measurement problem".
Causality is deeply embedded in physics. It is otherwise known as the principle of unitarity or the principle of determinism.
The extrapolation of the early universe to a creation event is not anywhere addressed by modern physics. It is this "creation" concept that is at error here. Creation is an anthropocentric concept. We create things, so we in turn must have been created. This has no foundation in logic.
In physics, there is no creation from nothing.
Therefore creation in religion has no foundation in science and no foundation in logic.
By invoking a god to explain creation, you answer nothing, but simply move the question to a different level.
@@markfernee3842 Well said ;-)