Is there any reason to believe in uncaused events?

[Polymath257]

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.

So, for example, the time it takes for a tritium nucleus to decay. There is an average value for when those decays happen. The easiest way to calculate that average is to add up the times and divide by the number of nuclei that decayed. So, yes, there is a way of going from the times for the individual decays to the average decay time. That isn't a *causal* relationship. It is simply calculational.

But the time for the individual decays is uncaused.

2) Misinterpretation. Probability is not compatible with spontaneity.

How so? In each year, there is a .0547 probability that any given tritium nucleus will decay. There is no way to know whether or not any specific nucleus will decay or not: all such nuclei are identical. However, nothing triggers the decay when it happens, so it is spontaneous.

 

[Valjean]

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 obvious to a non-thinking person that new things do not occur without a designer and maker. All the manufactured things people experience in their lives are made and designed, and they extrapolate this into a metaphysical truth.
They are wrong, just as the people in Plato's cave were wrong. People believed in the obvious for thousands of years, and there was no science and little progress in our understanding of the world. It was only after we abandoned commonsense and our belief in the obvious that human understanding took off.

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

interesting question. The problem arises when we find that we cannot distinguish between an event for which we do not know the cause and an event that is uncaused.

 

[Kapalika]

To believe in free will means to believe in uncased events. I subscribe to neither. we have some degree of choice, but such is determined b nature and other causes, us having only a margin of ability to truly choose.

 

[viole]

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 suspect that people who believe in free will are compelled to believe in uncaused events. Necessarily.

For, how can it be free, if it is ultimately caused?

Incidentally, causality is a macroscopic thing. An emergent property of a certain thermodynamical state. There is no such thing at fundamental level.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

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 suspect that people who believe in free will are compelled to believe in uncaused events. Necessarily.

For, how can it be free, if it is ultimately caused?

Incidentally, causality is a macroscopic thing. An emergent property of a certain thermodynamical state. There is no such thing at fundamental level.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nakosis]

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?

Just point out real quick quantum mechanics is still theoretical. There are other theories which allow for determinism.

Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time?

 

[Polymath257]

Just point out real quick quantum mechanics is still theoretical. There are other theories which allow for determinism.

Have We Been Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Wrong This Whole Time?

Sorry, but Bohm's version has multiple problems. The worst is that it completely fails to work in a relativistic context. In particular, it has no way to effectively deal with antimatter. But it is also a non-local description of things (these two difficulties are related): it has signals that instantaneously transfer across the universe.

So, while Bohmian mechanics is favored in philosophical journals, most working physicists understand that it is simply wrong.

\E: And no, quantum mechanics is NOT still theoretical. It is, by far, the most well established scientific theory we have ever had.

 

[DavidFirth]

People worship vans so why not?

 

[Sleeppy]

So, for example, the time it takes for a tritium nucleus to decay. There is an average value for when those decays happen. The easiest way to calculate that average is to add up the times and divide by the number of nuclei that decayed. So, yes, there is a way of going from the times for the individual decays to the average decay time. That isn't a *causal* relationship. It is simply calculational.

But the time for the individual decays is uncaused.



How so? In each year, there is a .0547 probability that any given tritium nucleus will decay. There is no way to know whether or not any specific nucleus will decay or not: all such nuclei are identical. However, nothing triggers the decay when it happens, so it is spontaneous.

Why not .0547% this year and 53% next year? These averages are not based on spontaneity. The fact that decay is guaranteed eventually, doesn't point to spontaneity.

Spontaneity is antithetical to science, for obvious reason. It's a convenient tool for scientists who need to cover the holes in their research.

 

[Sleeppy]

\E: And no, quantum mechanics is NOT still theoretical.

Not true. It's still a theory.

These Levitating Droplets Behave Strangely Like Quantum Particles

 

[Polymath257]

Why not .0547% this year and 53% next year? These averages are not based on spontaneity. The fact that decay is guaranteed eventually, doesn't point to spontaneity.

Spontaneity is antithetical to science, for obvious reason. It's a convenient tool for scientists who need to cover the holes in their research.

Well, like I said, the probabilities are determined quite accurately by the initial conditions. But not the specific events.

 

[Polymath257]

Not true. It's still a theory.

These Levitating Droplets Behave Strangely Like Quantum Particles

On the contrary, the Bohm/Pilot wave description is a different *interpretation* of classical quantum mechanics. But it fails to account for the relativistic aspects that we deal with all the time, including antimatter. While the Pilot wave description works well enough for non-relativistic aspects (like the two-slit experiment and some other aspects), it fails miserably to deal with spin as well as antimatter.

 

[Polymath257]

Not true. It's still a theory.

These Levitating Droplets Behave Strangely Like Quantum Particles

By the way, I really liked the videos of droplets on these standing waves. Way cool!

 

[sayak83]

Why not .0547% this year and 53% next year? These averages are not based on spontaneity. The fact that decay is guaranteed eventually, doesn't point to spontaneity.

Spontaneity is antithetical to science, for obvious reason. It's a convenient tool for scientists who need to cover the holes in their research.

Because instead of causation the picture of reality is based on entities with inherent propensities. These inherent propensities govern the probabilities of events happening or not happening by their own self nature.

 

[Sleeppy]

Because instead of causation the picture of reality is based on entities with inherent propensities. These inherent propensities govern the probabilities of events happening or not happening by their own self nature.

That's one big contradiction.

Without causation, there can be no base. No "inherent propensities". No "probabilities". And, no "happening by their own nature".

 

[Sleeppy]

Well, like I said, the probabilities are determined quite accurately by the initial conditions. But not the specific events.

The probabilities are determined? By the initial conditions? Why not some other conditions?

 

[Polymath257]

That's one big contradiction.

Without causation, there can be no base. No "inherent propensities". No "probabilities". And, no "happening by their own nature".

OK, what do you mean by the term 'causation'? Why is it that without causation, these things cannot be?

Given that QM predicts probabilities and not specific events, given that the particles in QM are defined by how they interact, given that those interactions determine those probabilities, and given that QM is by far the most accurate description of the universe we have had, it is *possible* you might be wrong here?

 

[Polymath257]

The probabilities are determined? By the initial conditions? Why not some other conditions?

Huh? Do you know what it means to be an 'initial condition' in this context? It is simply the conditions at one time of the experiment, or environment that you are going to measure. Those conditions determine the probabilities of later events, but not the events themselves.

 

[Sleeppy]

On the contrary, the Bohm/Pilot wave description is a different *interpretation* of classical quantum mechanics. But it fails to account for the relativistic aspects that we deal with all the time, including antimatter. While the Pilot wave description works well enough for non-relativistic aspects (like the two-slit experiment and some other aspects), it fails miserably to deal with spin as well as antimatter.

Interpretations aren't theories?

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.1280.pdf

 

[Sleeppy]

Huh? Do you know what it means to be an 'initial condition' in this context? It is simply the conditions at one time of the experiment, or environment that you are going to measure. Those conditions determine the probabilities of later events, but not the events themselves.

The question should be obvious: Why measure anything? Measurement is a deterministic tool.