Is there any reason to believe in uncaused events?

[sayak83]

Where? Cite two peer reviewed physics papers that conclude quantum events are wholly uncaused. Please note the "peer reviewed" and "conclude."


See my reply to LuisDantas above (post 19), and my challenge to you right above.

.

Experimental test of nonlocal causality | Science Advances

This is in short order. I will link more papers when I get the tine

 

[sayak83]

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.


.

Since quantum mechanics lies beneath all real world phenomena, what QM shows is that causation is a macroscopic approximation over an inherently stochastic reality. There is no Only in QM. It is the theory that describes all material reality (quantum gravity is about implementing quantum mechanics into gravity... Making it probabilistic in the same way)

 

[Skwim]

Experimental test of nonlocal causality | Science Advances

This is in short order. I will link more papers when I get the tine

Really!! Either you didn't read it or you read it but don't understand it.

.

 

[Skwim]

Since quantum mechanics lies beneath all real world phenomena, what QM shows is that causation is a macroscopic approximation over an inherently stochastic reality. There is no Only in QM. It is the theory that describes all material reality (quantum gravity is about implementing quantum mechanics into gravity... Making it probabilistic in the same way)

Sorry, but I fail to see any relevance to the issue.

.

 

[sayak83]

Sorry, but I fail to see any relevance to the issue.

.

It was clear enough.

 

[sayak83]

Really!! Either you didn't read it or you read it but don't understand it.

.

I did here.

Causal models are formulated without any reference to space-time structure, and hence, space-like separation between A and B is not required. Our results demonstrate that a causal influence from one measurement outcome to the other, which may be subluminal, superluminal, or even instantaneous, cannot explain the observed correlations.

Looks quite clear.

 

[Polymath257]

Really!! Either you didn't read it or you read it but don't understand it.

.

Really? It pretty clearly eliminates non-local causes as well as the previously excluded local causes.

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry, but I fail to see any relevance to the issue.

.

Well, then, that is your own deficiency. At the subatomic level, quantum mechanics rules. It is shown to be unexplainable via causal theories and the actual experiments verify quantum mechanics in the cases that exclude such causality.

So, the universe is, at base, non-causal. The causality that we see at the macroscopic level is that of statistical averages. Because there are so many atoms in any macroscopic sample, the averages are very precise. But they are still, ultimately, statistical.

What you seem to not understand about the experiments given is that all 'hidden variable' theories have been excluded: assuming there are causal relationships inevitably gives resultan be tested. When those tests have been done, the causal assumption is shown to be wrong.

 

[sayak83]

I would also ask for a definition of causation. Since it's not a scientific term, it's not precisely defined. So please explain what one means by cause and effect. I suspect that the cause effect idea is a convenient shorthand to classify useful regularities in the world that extend over time. And I have nothing against it in that role. But if one is building a metaphysics and claiming no event is outside of this cause-effect linguistic structure, I will need more.

 

[Polymath257]

Experimental test of nonlocal causality | Science Advances

This is in short order. I will link more papers when I get the tine

Here is an easily understood paper by a highly respected physicist that concerns some older results:
http://www-f1.ijs.si/~ramsak/km1/mermin.moon.pdf

The first couple of sections are just quotes leading up to the substance.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

That was very well put.

 

[james bond]

I got one from this thread. At least one atheist believes in UNCAUSED events, and think there isn't any cause for it. Actually, there is but you try telling an atheist what it is.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

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.

If things, causes, time, and the necessity for these things to fall in order were themselves the result of some sort of event, then what?

What if, say, instead of a duality of micro and macro, we actually sat somewhere in the middle of an indefinite scale of micro to macro? Whole universes being born and dying as an infinitesimal part of some super macro, which would be governed by a completely different set of properties than both the micro scale and macro scale as we understand them?(and the super duper macro, super super duper macro on up, and maybe micro micro micro on down.

Pure speculation, no evidence or reason to think it's true, but far more interesting to me as a possibility than the same old boring super intelligence canard.

 

[Etritonakin]

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.

Whether speaking of God or "nature", it is logical that all which now exists has always existed and changes in configuration.
Therefore it is logical that there was no very first cause -and that whatever was simply was -and what became of it was due to its nature (I AM THAT AM?).
It can be said that the development of awareness, self-awareness, intelligence and creativity is inherent in that which exists -the question is whether or not earthly life/humanity is the first example of such.
An original overall intelligence, self-awareness, personality, etc., is certainly not an absurd idea -and would explain the present state of things more than adequately.
Many religious would have trouble accepting the idea of a "developing" God -especially as it smacks of evolution -but I haven't been able to find anything thus far in scripture which is specifically contrary to that idea.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Either God and/or the universe had a first cause or they didn't. I don't see how that helps the theism vs atheism debate. Unless you know which of God or the universe it was that was caused...or uncaused.

 

[rusra02]

I think it is obvious to a thinking person that new things do not occur without a designer and maker. This is true of simple things; a fork, a cup, a chair. Much more complicated things, such as houses, and books, have never occurred without a maker. (Hebrews 3:4-the Bible)
Now consider inventions like the cell phone and computers. No evidence exists that these happened "naturally". Even the obvious genius and mental ability clearly evident in such man-made things pales in comparison to the intelligence and purpose seen in living creatures. DNA is one example of myriads, testifying to the supreme intelligence of it's Creator, IMO.

 

[Polymath257]

I think it is obvious to a thinking person that new things do not occur without a designer and maker. This is true of simple things; a fork, a cup, a chair. Much more complicated things, such as houses, and books, have never occurred without a maker. (Hebrews 3:4-the Bible)
Now consider inventions like the cell phone and computers. No evidence exists that these happened "naturally". Even the obvious genius and mental ability clearly evident in such man-made things pales in comparison to the intelligence and purpose seen in living creatures. DNA is one example of myriads, testifying to the supreme intelligence of it's Creator, IMO.

It is perfectly obvious that things *do* occur without a maker. A river delta happens just because a river carries sediment to its end. A star forms just because of gravity. A diamond forms just because of the presence of carbon at high pressure. Nobody intervenes in these processes. They happens naturally and spontaneously in the correct situations. And htose situations happen naturally, with no intelligent intervention.

A hurricane has great complexity, but forms because of the action of natural laws with no outside intervention. A tree will grow from a seed that nobody planted.

You are simply wrong in your initial assumption, however 'obvious' it was to you.

 

[Sleeppy]

So, the universe is, at base, non-causal. The causality that we see at the macroscopic level is that of statistical averages. Because there are so many atoms in any macroscopic sample, the averages are very precise. But they are still, ultimately, statistical.

Spontaneity ≠ "statistical averages".


1) Those averages are necessarily causal.

2) Science without cause and effect is impossible.

 

[Polymath257]

Spontaneity ≠ "statistical averages".


1) Those averages are necessarily causal.

How so? What definition of causality do you use? If the underlying events are not causal, are the averages?

2) Science without cause and effect is impossible.

This is shown to be wrong by quantum mechanics. In a sense, the probabilities are caused, but not the specific events. The science predicts the possible outcomes and their probabilities.

 

[Sleeppy]

How so? What definition of causality do you use? If the underlying events are not causal, are the averages?



This is shown to be wrong by quantum mechanics. In a sense, the probabilities are caused, but not the specific events. The science predicts the possible outcomes and their probabilities.

1) What are the averages describing? There is necessarily a causal relationship between the average, and the thing the average describes. If this were not the case, there would be no macroscopic reliability, whatsoever.

2) Misinterpretation. Probability is not compatible with spontaneity.