• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is there any reason to believe in uncaused events?

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
I'm wondering if we have reason to believe in uncaused events. So far as I understand, if we have no examples or evidence of something, the reasonable course of action is not to believe in that thing until there is evidence. While I've never seen or heard evidence of uncaused events, being always the skeptic I lack the trust in myself to say so conclusively, so I come asking.

Obviously this ties into a lot of "first cause" arguments. If there are no uncaused events most theists seem to think it supports their position of a creator god. If there are uncaused events, atheism gets a huge one-up on first cause arguments. I'm somewhere in between.

For me I do accept a necessary first thing, but beyond that I'm not sure. I certainly don't believe in a creator god, that this world is willfully made. Nor do I believe something came from nothing. My view is similar to that of primordial chaos.

Anyways, is there reason to believe uncaused events happen? Not be open to maybe accepting that one day on evidence, but to accepting it now based on current evidence.
 
I'm wondering if we have reason to believe in uncaused events. So far as I understand, if we have no examples or evidence of something, the reasonable course of action is not to believe in that thing until there is evidence. While I've never seen or heard evidence of uncaused events, being always the skeptic I lack the trust in myself to say so conclusively, so I come asking.

Obviously this ties into a lot of "first cause" arguments. If there are no uncaused events most theists seem to think it supports their position of a creator god. If there are uncaused events, atheism gets a huge one-up on first cause arguments. I'm somewhere in between.

For me I do accept a necessary first thing, but beyond that I'm not sure. I certainly don't believe in a creator god, that this world is willfully made. Nor do I believe something came from nothing. My view is similar to that of primordial chaos.

Anyways, is there reason to believe uncaused events happen? Not be open to maybe accepting that one day on evidence, but to accepting it now based on current evidence.

Why does there have to be a beginning? Perhaps the universe has always existed in one form or another.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
When you get into theoretical physics, the margins are pretty wide for future change. I wouldn't make any definite statements about even things like 'what causes black holes to evaporate' (since hawking radiation requires virtual particles and who knows what causes those) let alone something as complex as 'what caused the initial matter of the universe.' It's possible there was a first cause, or it's possible that there can't be a first cause because that requires time to exist before time exists. And 'what happened before time' isn't an answerable question. Or there is a cause but it requires understanding some fundamental bit of physics we haven't caught on to yet.
It's even possible there is a first cause and that first cause is something like what somebody has called a god. But I do feel pretty confident saying that filling in those mysteries with gods is probably premature, like most natural phenomena we thought were caused by gods in the past.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I'm wondering if we have reason to believe in uncaused events. So far as I understand, if we have no examples or evidence of something, the reasonable course of action is not to believe in that thing until there is evidence. While I've never seen or heard evidence of uncaused events, being always the skeptic I lack the trust in myself to say so conclusively, so I come asking.

Obviously this ties into a lot of "first cause" arguments. If there are no uncaused events most theists seem to think it supports their position of a creator god. If there are uncaused events, atheism gets a huge one-up on first cause arguments. I'm somewhere in between.

For me I do accept a necessary first thing, but beyond that I'm not sure. I certainly don't believe in a creator god, that this world is willfully made. Nor do I believe something came from nothing. My view is similar to that of primordial chaos.

Anyways, is there reason to believe uncaused events happen? Not be open to maybe accepting that one day on evidence, but to accepting it now based on current evidence.
I think an appropriate approach would be through the scientific term described as potential.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm wondering if we have reason to believe in uncaused events. So far as I understand, if we have no examples or evidence of something, the reasonable course of action is not to believe in that thing until there is evidence. While I've never seen or heard evidence of uncaused events, being always the skeptic I lack the trust in myself to say so conclusively, so I come asking.

Obviously this ties into a lot of "first cause" arguments. If there are no uncaused events most theists seem to think it supports their position of a creator god. If there are uncaused events, atheism gets a huge one-up on first cause arguments. I'm somewhere in between.

For me I do accept a necessary first thing, but beyond that I'm not sure. I certainly don't believe in a creator god, that this world is willfully made. Nor do I believe something came from nothing. My view is similar to that of primordial chaos.

Anyways, is there reason to believe uncaused events happen? Not be open to maybe accepting that one day on evidence, but to accepting it now based on current evidence.
Radioactive decay is uncaused. Each radioactive atom has a probability of decay, but the decay itself is unamused by any prior event. Many other examples exist from quantum mechanics.
In fact almost any quantum event is at least partly uncaused. Most outcomes of quantum mechanics is irreducible probabilistic. Given the same prior event, multiple future events may happen with certain probabilities with no fact of the matter determining which of them does in fact occur. So how can the prior event be called a cause?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
What do you mean by the word 'caused'? The answer may very well depend on how you define this elusive concept.

So, for example, if a 'cause' is required to produce a single effect at a certain time, then there are many known situations that are not caused: quantum mechanics is full of them: instead of single effects that are guaranteed by their causes, QM usually has a probabilistic aspect.

So, do we allow, in our definition of the word 'cause' that a single cause could produce very different effects and at wildly different times?

So, to use @sayak83 example above, take any radioactive isotope, say Hydrogen-3 (also called tritium). It has what is known as a half-life. In this case, after 12.32 years, half of the tritium atoms in an original sample will have decayed. In another 12.32 years, half of the remaining atoms will decay (leaving 1/4 of the original). This continues indefinitely.

Now, there is NO difference between the tritium atom that decays right now, the tritium atoms that decays in 12 years and the tritium atom that decays 100 years from now. In every single way we know of, even theoretically, these atoms are *identical*. There is no 'internal mechanism' that is 'ticking down' to determine when a specific atom will decay.

So, do we want to say that the decay of a tritium atom is 'caused'?

Certainly, that tritium atom is 'unstable' in the sense that it has a probability of decaying in any given period of time. That instability is 'caused' by the specific makeup of the tritium atom (one proton, and two neutrons). But *when* that atom decays is not determined in any way: only the probability of decay in any time period.

So, what is your definition of the word 'cause'? Does it work for the decay of a tritium atom?
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
I'm wondering if we have reason to believe in uncaused events. So far as I understand, if we have no examples or evidence of something, the reasonable course of action is not to believe in that thing until there is evidence. While I've never seen or heard evidence of uncaused events, being always the skeptic I lack the trust in myself to say so conclusively, so I come asking.

Obviously this ties into a lot of "first cause" arguments. If there are no uncaused events most theists seem to think it supports their position of a creator god. If there are uncaused events, atheism gets a huge one-up on first cause arguments. I'm somewhere in between.

For me I do accept a necessary first thing, but beyond that I'm not sure. I certainly don't believe in a creator god, that this world is willfully made. Nor do I believe something came from nothing. My view is similar to that of primordial chaos.

Anyways, is there reason to believe uncaused events happen? Not be open to maybe accepting that one day on evidence, but to accepting it now based on current evidence.

There is no reason to believe caused or non-caused events happen. Causation is a human thing, evolution gave us a need to find cause as a survival means. You don't need to find cause and can still live a good life.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I'm wondering if we have reason to believe in uncaused events.

Yes, there are a few very good reasons.

One is a lack of evidence for all events being caused.

Another is that certainty of the existence of "a reason" is very harmful for human behavior and emotional state.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Yes, there are a few very good reasons.

One is a lack of evidence for all events being caused.
This calls to mind Popper's ravens. I only wish I understood this. I really wish that I had a meaningful grasp of Bayesian analysis.

Another is that certainty of the existence of "a reason" is very harmful for human behavior and emotional state.
You seem very sure. (Sorry - couldn't help myself.)

I'm not a big fan of certainty. Still, your comment strikes me as over-reach.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Don't particles pop into and out of the quantum field all the time, for no apparent reason?

We should be careful of extrapolating our experience of the everyday, sensory world onto Reality.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
I doubt simplified human concepts are adequate for understanding or describing the true nature of reality - whatever it may be. People give themselves way too much credit. We're just scratching the surface. I see no reason to assume we even have the capacity to understand or observe the possible complexity and depths of existence.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I doubt simplified human concepts are adequate for understanding or describing the true nature of reality - whatever it may be. People give themselves way too much credit. We're just scratching the surface. I see no reason to assume we even have the capacity to understand or observe the possible complexity and depths of existence.
The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.
- Einstein
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Radioactive decay is uncaused. Each radioactive atom has a probability of decay, but the decay itself is unamused by any prior event.
This is an old saw that's been repeated so much that it's begun to take on the guise of fact. The fact is, no event, be it at the macroscopic level or the quantum level, has been shown to be uncaused. At most, the event is unpredictable, reducing its existence to a probability, just as you state: "Most outcomes of quantum mechanics is irreducible probabilistic."

Given the same prior event, multiple future events may happen with certain probabilities with no fact of the matter determining which of them does in fact occur.
Show us your evidence.

.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
You seem very sure. (Sorry - couldn't help myself.)

I'm not a big fan of certainty. Still, your comment strikes me as over-reach.
I wish you had met the Kardecists (and some Christians) that I know here in Brazil. Then we could talk about whether I am over-reaching.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I wish you had met the Kardecists (and some Christians) that I know here in Brazil. Then we could talk about whether I am over-reaching.
You wrote:
... certainty of the existence of "a reason" is very harmful for human behavior and emotional state.
Had I known that you were referring to "Kardecists (and some Christians)" -- and, by implication, not to , e.g., other Christians -- I would have probably used 'over-generalization' instead of 'over-reach'.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Don't particles pop into and out of the quantum field all the time, for no apparent reason?

We should be careful of extrapolating our experience of the everyday, sensory world onto Reality.

Yes, they do. But moving up to what we have measured in detail (radioactive decay) works a bit better. Both are ultimately probabilistic.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
This is an old saw that's been repeated so much that it's begun to take on the guise of fact. The fact is, no event, be it at the macroscopic level or the quantum level, has been shown to be uncaused. At most, the event is unpredictable, reducing its existence to a probability, just as you state: "Most outcomes of quantum mechanics is irreducible probabilistic."


Show us your evidence.

.
Quantum mechanics tells us this is the case. That there is no fact of the matter that determines which of the radioactive atoms is going to decay, or which of the probable outcomes will be realized. Quantum mechanics is the most successful physical theory in the world and no hidden variables theory has yet been able to either replace it or even cone close to its predictive success. So it is up to you to show that quantum mechanics is wrong, not me. You are assuming causation when the most successful physical theory that predicts everything so successfully says there isn't one. Justify your assumption. Show its more than a mere bias, a hold over from long useless and discarded worldviews of day to day life.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
You wrote:
Had I known that you were referring to "Kardecists (and some Christians)" -- and, by implication, not to , e.g., other Christians -- I would have probably used 'over-generalization' instead of 'over-reach'.
Don't misunderstand me. I am generalizing. Certainty is not very healthy for anyone. We all should allow for a measure of uncertainty, at least enough to be prepared to revise our goals when given enough reason or evidence.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Yes, there are a few very good reasons.

One is a lack of evidence for all events being caused.
No more so than any evidence that some events are uncaused. The reason causation wins the default position is that so far every event we see is rationally judged to have a cause. This applies to everything in the universe (the BB being an arguable exception). The only place causation has come into question is at the quantum level where so far all science can do is establish probabilities. But probabilities, which can also be assigned to any macroscopic event, do not eliminate or even suggest the nonexistence of cause. And because causation is the ruling reason for an action or condition in our universe there is no reason to doubt it also exists at the quantum, which is why the onus of proof lies on the assertion that causation does not operate at the quantum level.

So, show us the evidence that causation does not exist at the quantum level.


.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Quantum mechanics tells us this is the case.
Where? Cite two peer reviewed physics papers that conclude quantum events are wholly uncaused. Please note the "peer reviewed" and "conclude."

Quantum mechanics is the most successful physical theory in the world and no hidden variables theory has yet been able to either replace it or even cone close to its predictive success. So it is up to you to show that quantum mechanics is wrong, not me. You are assuming causation when the most successful physical theory that predicts everything so successfully says there isn't one. Justify your assumption. Show its more than a mere bias, a hold over from long useless and discarded worldviews of day to day life.
See my reply to LuisDantas above (post 19), and my challenge to you right above.

.
 
Top