What does modern physics say about uncaused effects

In summary: But for some people, this evidence does not satisfy their philosophical needs and they continue to search for an uncaused cause. Modern physics does not provide any evidence that supports the existence of an uncaused cause.
  • #1
VonWeber
52
0
What does modern physics say about "uncaused" effects

The old Cosmological argument says that everywhere we see an effect like motion or change we see a cause. This is a useful way of looking at everyday things. It goes on to say that regressing they form a chain. This is something we experience and take for granted. The argument goes on to say that they can't go on forever, and that we must stop at one and only one uncaused cause. I can see no reason to assume that they can't go on forever or stop at any single uncaused cause.

I don't really know a lot of physics. I wonder if current physics has any bearing on this question? First of all, even though we may not readily see them there might be many 'effects' with no known cause. But it would be pointless to argue if every motion we ever observe has a cause. I've heard about quantum fluctuations and people have claimed that energy sporadically appears and dissapears. I suppose it's open to a lot of interpretation, but I wonder if this is something like a 'effect' without known causes. Then there is the big bang. To a lay person such as myself it kind of looks like you could trace everything back to a small set of causes. However I am aware that time and space don't follow our everyday intuition on that scale. Any thoughts that point me in the right direction would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
An effect or an event that has no cause is self-created since it does not depend on anything for its creation (by definition). Its production is independent of anything else that exists, independent of anything real. It literally appears out of nothing.

The first question that springs to mind then is this: how often do self-created events occur? Being independent of anything real, there is no limit to the production of spontaneous effects. No rule established in the real domain can possibly determine or calculate or control their rate of production since they are purely independent. Since science can only deal with the natural world, this becomes a matter of philosophy more than physics.

We can still speculate. Given the complete absence of any restriction, it is not unreasonable to consider that if self-created events occur at all, they may very well occur with infinite frequency, in which case everything we observe is spontaneous. No room would remain for caused events, or they would be completely obliterated by the infinite number of spontaneous effects anyway. The laws of nature as described by scientific theories must therefore be coincidental correlations more than true laws: there cannot be any without true causes and effects. In an infinite reality of purely self-generated events, the probability of a world like ours at one time or another is actually a certainty: infinite possibilities exist, ours is just one of them. We happen to be part of the current coincidence, which can end at any moment. No worry, we might not even notice if it spontaneously ends.
 
  • #3
out of whack said:
An effect or an event that has no cause is self-created since it does not depend on anything for its creation (by definition). Its production is independent of anything else that exists, independent of anything real. It literally appears out of nothing.



.

It would be enlightening if you could explain HOW something could literally appear out of nothing. I could accept that something can appear from 'nothing' that consists of something that we do not understand or cannot detect, but appearing from 'nothing-nothing' does not compute because it negates the meaning of nothing.
 
  • #4
I want to start over. Are any uncaused causes known to physics? That is are there anything that causes changes, motions, etc. that we can observe that we have no reason to think was itself caused by anything itself?
 
  • #5
sd01g said:
It would be enlightening if you could explain HOW something could literally appear out of nothing.
No kidding. But any explanation could only be a fable. If something can occur without a cause then you cannot possibly describe HOW it happens. What would you state as a cause when the premise is that there isn't one? What process could you describe that involves nothing?

sd01g said:
I could accept that something can appear from 'nothing' that consists of something that we do not understand or cannot detect,

Of course this is not what the OP is asking. The question is not about causes we have not yet identified but about events that literally have no cause.

sd01g said:
but appearing from 'nothing-nothing' does not compute because it negates the meaning of nothing.

Actually it doesn't, it only negates the universality of cause and effect relationships. There is no irrefutable proof that all events must have a cause, only spectacularly consistent evicence of this. It is proof enough for most reasonable scientists, but truly revolutionary theories are not produced by reasonable people who are content to accept the common sense of the day.

VonWeber said:
I want to start over. Are any uncaused causes known to physics? That is are there anything that causes changes, motions, etc. that we can observe that we have no reason to think was itself caused by anything itself?

You may want to ask this in the quantum mechanics section of the forum. I understand that certain quantum theories involve something of that nature.
 
  • #6
VonWeber said:
Are any uncaused causes known to physics? That is are there anything that causes changes, motions, etc. that we can observe that we have no reason to think was itself caused by anything itself?
Yes. Every quantum event is like that (as far as we can tell <-- edit). We cannot cause them to occur but only determine their probability of occurring.

It makes sense that there must be uncaused events otherwise every event/cause would rest upon an infinite regress of preceding causes or there would exist closed causal loops.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
backdoorstudent said:
Yes. Every quantum event is like that. We cannot cause them to occur but only determine their probability of occurring.
It may appear "like" that, but how can we rule out the possibility of an unknown cause for these unpredictable quantum events? Not by their unpredictable nature since it may just be our failure to grasp the underlying cause. Also, if we can calculate probabilities under various conditions, then at least some degree of predictability applies, which in turn suggests that quantum events indeed have causes, albeit of an unknown nature.

backdoorstudent said:
It makes sense that there must be uncaused events otherwise every event/cause would rest upon an infinite regress of preceding causes or there would exist closed causal loops.
How do we know we are not in an endless loop of epic proportions? Big-Bang, Big-Crunch, Repeat. It would not bother me.
 
  • #8
out of whack said:
Of course this is not what the OP is asking. The question is not about causes we have not yet identified but about events that literally have no cause.





.

The problem is if we identified an event that literally had no cause we could never know that it had no cause. We will never be sure we have identified the smallest thing(s) in the universe and therefore we will never know if there is something we do not know about has caused the event. We can, however, believe things that we will never know.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
sd01g said:
The problem is if we identified an event that literally had no cause we could never know that it had no cause.

Indeed. When we cannot reconcile an event with its cause according to our current set of theories, we have two possibilities: either the event was self-created or our set of theories is incomplete. Scientists assume the latter and get to work to try to find more theories. Non-scientists just go play football. Both approaches have merit. :smile:

sd01g said:
We can, however, believe things that we will never know.

Yes. People tend to believe whatever makes them feel better.
 
  • #10
out of whack said:
No kidding. But any explanation could only be a fable. If something can occur without a cause then you cannot possibly describe HOW it happens. What would you state as a cause when the premise is that there isn't one? What process could you describe that involves nothing?







.

An excellent piece of sophistry. Perhaps one should not confuse the concept of nothing-something with the concept of cause-noncause or the concept of being-nonbeing.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
sd01g said:
An excellent piece of sophistry. Perhaps one should not confuse the concept of nothing-something with the concept of cause-noncause or the concept of being-nonbeing.

Say, it's a short accusation. Do you care to explain instead in which part of my statement you think there's a trick?
 
  • #12
I can think of at least two uncaused events.
Virtual particles being spontaneously generated in a vacuum and radioactive decay. Another possibility is proton decay.
 
  • #13
the issue is not how you can get creation ex nihilo- the issue is with the concept of Nothing: nequaquam vacuum- nowhere a void- the Universe Exists- therefore Nothing does not [and if Nothing did exist it would not by definition!] Nothing is Not- the idea of Nothing is very anthropomorphic and only a relational idea- you cannot imagine that there was some form of Nothing in which the Universe emerged through self-creation- the Universe exists-

so you are only left with the Prime Question of "why is there Something rather than Nothing?" the question :"how did something arise from nothing?" doesn't work
 
Last edited:
  • #14
setAI said:
the issue is not how you can get creation ex nihilo- the issue is with the concept of Nothing: nequaquam vacuum- nowhere a void- the Universe Exists- therefore Nothing does not [and if Nothing did exist it would not by definition!] Nothing is Not- the idea of Nothing is very anthropomorphic and only a relational idea- you cannot imagine that there was some form of Nothing in which the Universe emerged through self-creation- the Universe exists-

so you are only left with the Prime Question of "why is there Something rather than Nothing?" the question :"how did something arise from nothing?" doesn't work

It seems that we have Something and Nothing. The only plausible answer is there has always been Something and Nothing. But Why? or How? We do not yet know.
 
  • #15
out of whack said:
Say, it's a short accusation. Do you care to explain instead in which part of my statement you think there's a trick?

If one claims that an event (or anything else) can come from or originate from literally nothing (as opposed to apparently nothing) and presents no real evidence that it can happen and refuses to even speculate on How it might happen, then faith, dogma, or sophistry are the only ways to support that claim.
 
  • #16
sd01g said:
If one claims that an event (or anything else) can come from or originate from literally nothing (as opposed to apparently nothing) and presents no real evidence that it can happen and refuses to even speculate on How it might happen, then faith, dogma, or sophistry are the only ways to support that claim.

Ah, so you criticized me for a claim I didn't make. I didn't say that uncaused events truly happen, or that they do not happen. I see no evidence either way. I even doubt that proof can be produced either way. Since the topic of this discussion is uncaused events then the first thing to do is clarify what they are if we hope to understand anything. Read my posts again and you will see that this is what I was doing. I also speculated as an aside (and said that this is what I was doing).

Uncaused events are fairly simple: they have no cause. I see no need to debate the meaning of nothing versus something and other philosophical squabbles. If you want to analyze something that isn't there then go ahead but I don't see how you can describe what isn't and what it doesn't do. So when you ask me HOW uncaused events happen then you waste a question. It's not sophistry, just common sense.

Now, Royce cited two such "uncaused" events: generation of virtual particles and radioactive decay. I believe the theories that mention these are simply models that are useful to describe some behaviour. A real cause for these is probably not even of concern to the theories in question which work perfectly well without the need to specify any. I don't think the theory literally claims that the events have no cause of any kind but simply disregard the matter as unnecessary using Occam's razor. Royce or any other quantum theorist can correct me if I'm mistaken.
 
  • #17
sd01g said:
It seems that we have Something and Nothing. The only plausible answer is there has always been Something and Nothing. But Why? or How? We do not yet know.

I guess it is better to state that there is Something AND Nothing, and that the question as to "why is there something rather then nothing" is pure sophistry, since the question already treats something and nothing (or, better termed: being and nonbeing) as absolutely seperate, and not in their unity, which is becoming.
A statement or argument that is using a baseless assumption [which insists on treating being and nonbeing as absolutely separate and which therefore do not form a unity of becoming, and in such way, that a begin of something, or becoming, becomes incomprehensible] is not dialectics but sophistry.

See:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hl083.htm#HL1_103
 
  • #18
Four words: Bell's Hidden Variables Theorem.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that...

quantum events (such as decay) do indeed happen spontaneously, without a cause, we can measure them and predict them, but QM is based upon the acceptance that it cannot be explained how or why.It is critical to note that it is not a matter of "we don't know yet", it is a mtter of there CANNOT be causes we might not know about.


See, as soon as QM was put forth and showed how bizarre some of these spontaneous phenomona are, the counterargument was put forth that there could be hidden variables that caused these things to happen - variables that we have not discovered yet.

Alas, Bell came along. "[URL [Broken] theorem[/URL] elegantly and brilliantly shows that there CANNOT be variables which we are unaware of. If there were, we would not see the results we see.

His theorem has been called by some as "the most profound in science".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
heusdens said:
.
A statement or argument that is using a baseless assumption [which insists on treating being and nonbeing as absolutely separate and which therefore do not form a unity of becoming, and in such way, that a begin of something, or becoming, becomes incomprehensible] is not dialectics but sophistry.

See:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hl083.htm#HL1_103

I am not using baseless assumptions. I am using definitions. I do not believe nonbeing and nothing are precisely the same. It is for sure that they are not the same words and probably produce slightly different neurological reponses during cognitive processing. It is easy to conjure up some mystical method of nonbeing transmuting into being, but it is logically and semanticly impossible for pure, literal nothing to changes to something. If 'nothing' has the ability to change to something, then that ability to change is something, and that 'nothing' was really something. Its OK to believe that Hegel is the path to enlightment but I believe that philosophy should be written as plainly and precisely as possible.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
DaveC426913 said:
Four words: Bell's Hidden Variables Theorem.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that...

quantum events (such as decay) do indeed happen spontaneously, without a cause, we can measure them and predict them, but QM is based upon the acceptance that it cannot be explained how or why.It is critical to note that it is not a matter of "we don't know yet", it is a mtter of there CANNOT be causes we might not know about.


See, as soon as QM was put forth and showed how bizarre some of these spontaneous phenomona are, the counterargument was put forth that there could be hidden variables that caused these things to happen - variables that we have not discovered yet.

Alas, Bell came along. "[URL [Broken] theorem[/URL] elegantly and brilliantly shows that there CANNOT be variables which we are unaware of. If there were, we would not see the results we see.

His theorem has been called by some as "the most profound in science".

It appears that Bell's Theorem has become Bell's Law. I think I will wait until we understand how gravity works before I accept the proposition that we know everything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
sd01g said:
It appears that Bell's Theorem has become Bell's Law. I think I will wait until we understand how gravity works before I accept the proposition that we know everything.
Who said anything about knowing everything?

The point is merely that it is possible to KNOW that some things do NOT exist.
 
  • #22
sd01g said:
I am not using baseless assumptions. I am using definitions. I do not believe nonbeing and nothing are precisely the same. It is for sure that they are not the same words and probably produce slightly different neurological reponses during cognitive processing. It is easy to conjure up some mystical method of nonbeing transmuting into being, but it is logically and semanticly impossible for pure, literal nothing to changes to something. If 'nothing' has the ability to change to something, then that ability to change is something, and that 'nothing' was really something. Its OK to believe that Hegel is the path to enlightment but I believe that philosophy should be written as plainly and precisely as possible.

Precisely! If one already assume Being and Nonbeing as absolutely SEPERATE (that is, to reflect on them outside of their unity, which is BECOMING) then there can be no conceivable way in which 'Nonbeing' changes into 'Being'!

Yet at the same time, the 'Nonbeing' of say a block of ice, after you have put a cube of water into the fridgerator, is something totally comprehensible, since the water when cooled down into the cube of ice.
That is to say, we already understand this as that the water in liquid form turns into the cube of ice, causing the 'Being' of the ice, which before that, did not exist (not in the form of a solid).

So, we already comprehend Being and Nonbeing in their Unity of Becoming, and outside of their Unity, this is TOTALY INCOMPREHENSIBLE!

Exactly that is the conclusion Hegel makes, that without this unity of Becoming, Being and Nonbeing become incomprehensible. See remark 4: Incomprehensibility of the Beginning:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hl083.htm#HL1_103


The 'Nonbeing' of the ice turns into the 'Being' of the ice, just by cooling down liquid water below the freezing point. In THAT case, we DO comprehend this. That is because we see the PROCESS in which something becomes from something else, as a mere transformation (in this case, the molecular binding of the water molecules).
 
  • #23
heusdens said:
Yet at the same time, the 'Nonbeing' of say a block of ice, after you have put a cube of water into the fridgerator, is something totally comprehensible, since the water when cooled down into the cube of ice.
That is to say, we already understand this as that the water in liquid form turns into the cube of ice, causing the 'Being' of the ice, which before that, did not exist (not in the form of a solid).
The above is simply an argument of semantics, i.e. based on the meaning of the words used - such as how one defines 'ice' versus 'water'. There is no philosophical ground being covered here.
 
  • #24
DaveC426913 said:
Who said anything about knowing everything?

The point is merely that it is possible to KNOW that some things do NOT exist.

I am more concerned about the things that DO exist that we do not yet KNOW exist.
 
  • #25
heusdens said:
Precisely! If one already assume Being and Nonbeing as absolutely SEPERATE (that is, to reflect on them outside of their unity, which is BECOMING) then there can be no conceivable way in which 'Nonbeing' changes into 'Being'!

Yet at the same time, the 'Nonbeing' of say a block of ice, after you have put a cube of water into the fridgerator, is something totally comprehensible, since the water when cooled down into the cube of ice.
That is to say, we already understand this as that the water in liquid form turns into the cube of ice, causing the 'Being' of the ice, which before that, did not exist (not in the form of a solid).

So, we already comprehend Being and Nonbeing in their Unity of Becoming, and outside of their Unity, this is TOTALY INCOMPREHENSIBLE!

Exactly that is the conclusion Hegel makes, that without this unity of Becoming, Being and Nonbeing become incomprehensible. See remark 4: Incomprehensibility of the Beginning:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hl083.htm#HL1_103


The 'Nonbeing' of the ice turns into the 'Being' of the ice, just by cooling down liquid water below the freezing point. In THAT case, we DO comprehend this. That is because we see the PROCESS in which something becomes from something else, as a mere transformation (in this case, the molecular binding of the water molecules).

It seems that, perhaps, we have confused superficiality with profundity.
 
  • #26
out of whack said:
We can still speculate. Given the complete absence of any restriction, it is not unreasonable to consider that if self-created events occur at all, they may very well occur with infinite frequency, in which case everything we observe is spontaneous. No room would remain for caused events, or they would be completely obliterated by the infinite number of spontaneous effects anyway. The laws of nature as described by scientific theories must therefore be coincidental correlations more than true laws: there cannot be any without true causes and effects. In an infinite reality of purely self-generated events, the probability of a world like ours at one time or another is actually a certainty: infinite possibilities exist, ours is just one of them. We happen to be part of the current coincidence, which can end at any moment. No worry, we might not even notice if it spontaneously ends.

When one divides by ZERO one produces imaginary results that have no empirical counterparts. When one speculates that something comes from literally nothing, one can produce such as the above which is completely devoid of any empirical reality. Could, however, be developed into some great science fiction.
 
  • #27
sd01g said:
When one divides by ZERO one produces imaginary results that have no empirical counterparts.

It's not actually possible to do so since the operation is undefined.

sd01g said:
When one speculates that something comes from literally nothing, one can produce such as the above which is completely devoid of any empirical reality.

You can take any premise and follow it to its logical conclusion. If events can indeed occur without any cause (the OP's premise) there is no scarcity of circumstances to limit their occurrence (a direct corollary). In the absence of limiting factors, an unlimited amount of them can occur (a conclusion based on the initial premise). Of course if the premise is false then the conclusion does not apply.

As to whether this is empirical reality or not, or if the premise is true or false, I don't know if it is even possible to either prove or refute with absolute certainty. If you make a claim either way then the burden of proof is on you.

sd01g said:
Could, however, be developed into some great science fiction.

Uh-huh. Unlike science, art needs no proof.
 
  • #28
backdoorstudent said:
Yes. Every quantum event is like that (as far as we can tell <-- edit). We cannot cause them to occur but only determine their probability of occurring.

Sometimes it's the prediction of an event that causes the event to happen.

Other times it's been theorized that an awareness of an event collapes the event.

When physicists look for a cause is it possible that they're collapsing it?

Or, do they become the cause in their efforts to find a cause?
 
  • #29
backdoorstudent said:
Yes. Every quantum event is like that (as far as we can tell <-- edit). We cannot cause them to occur but only determine their probability of occurring.

It makes sense that there must be uncaused events otherwise every event/cause would rest upon an infinite regress of preceding causes or there would exist closed causal loops.

Is there any principal argument against infinite causal chain?
 
  • #30
out of whack said:
An effect or an event that has no cause is self-created since it does not depend on anything for its creation (by definition). Its production is independent of anything else that exists, independent of anything real. It literally appears out of nothing.

To what events does this apply?

I would argue that we are some misguided by thinking that uncaused effects exist, although some quantum mechanical events, look like it.

The argument is as follows: if uncaused effects could exist, then there would neither be any causes for them to not exist. If we would at some place, and at some time, and under some conditions see effects without causes, we would need to see them also at different place, time and under different conditions, because (as we defined) there is nothing that determines an uncaused effect to occur at any place, any time and any condition.
If however there is a tendency for effects (which we described as "uncaused" ) to occur at this place, but not that place, or this moment, but not that moment, or under this condition, but not that condition, then it seems that the "uncaused" effect is determined by something, which is contradictionary, since uncaused effects can not be determined by anything.

But if that were the case, we might ask how it could be that caused effects could exist, because uncaused effects would occur all the time, at all places and under all circumstances, UNLESS this IS determined by something. However BY DEFINITION uncaused effects are not determined by anything.

This means that either there exists caused effects and all effects are causal, or everything is uncausal. That would however mean that everything is undeterminable, it would be a world which we could not have knowledge about.

This reasoning does not forbid there to be quantum fluctuations I guess, since this is a very limited effect, for example a small life time for particle/anti-article pair, there is appearantly a limited amount (determined by the Heizenberg uncertainty relationship) of "free" energy, which on average is zero.

Uncaused effects, if they could exist, would have much weirder properties, for example uncaused particles (without the accompanying anti-particle) and massive violations of energy/mass conservation and quantum number.

So I guess, there are determinations for those effects, therefore they are not uncaused.
 
  • #31
The argument is as follows: if uncaused effects could exist, then there would neither be any causes for them to not exist. If we would at some place, and at some time, and under some conditions see effects without causes, we would need to see them also at different place, time and under different conditions, because (as we defined) there is nothing that determines an uncaused effect to occur at any place, any time and any condition.
If however there is a tendency for effects (which we described as "uncaused" ) to occur at this place, but not that place, or this moment, but not that moment, or under this condition, but not that condition, then it seems that the "uncaused" effect is determined by something, which is contradictionary, since uncaused effects can not be determined by anything.
That does not follow. Fallacy of false choice.

Uncaused events do not have to happen all the time or at no time (ie, not happen at all)
 
  • #32
sneez said:
That does not follow. Fallacy of false choice.

Uncaused events do not have to happen all the time or at no time (ie, not happen at all)

If it turns out that those uncaused events happen under specific conditions, it means those events *are* determined already, for why else would they occur at that moments but not on other moments?
But uncaused events can not have any determination in any sense. That is the problem with assuming uncaused events. If you don't conclude that you are leaving room for some unknown cause to exist, which could determine the conditions of these events.

What I mean is this: suppose we see an event (effect) that happens every second. Now, just because it is determined to occur every second, this means it can (in principle) not be an uncaused effects. Uncaused effects do not have such determinations.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
First, I am not stating my stance on the issue, I am just commenting on the reasoning here.

If it turns out that those uncaused events happen under specific conditions, it means those events *are* determined already, for why else would they occur at that moments but not on other moments?
This is you forcing 'common sense' into the reasoning. Uncause event may happen at ANY time, any place but not necessariliy at all places all the time. The keyword 'specific' conditions is already presuposing something which is not related to the UE (uncaused event) but it is observed.

: suppose we see an event (effect) that happens every second. Now, just because it is determined to occur every second, this means it can (in principle) not be an uncaused effects. Uncaused effects do not have such determinations.
Exactly, I feel you are making that mistake. UE can be observed deterministically. In your example just because something happens every second does not mean its causual event (CE). Unless you are able to see mechanism of causation (which is very hard topic on its own), than I do not see your conclusion. The UE may break from that apparent period after time,space period that is too big or too small for you to measure or assume.
 
  • #34
sneez said:
This is you forcing 'common sense' into the reasoning. Uncause event may happen at ANY time, any place but not necessariliy at all places all the time. The keyword 'specific' conditions is already presuposing something which is not related to the UE (uncaused event) but it is observed.

If something happes at all places all times, then that is indeterminable.

Exactly, I feel you are making that mistake. UE can be observed deterministically. In your example just because something happens every second does not mean its causual event (CE). Unless you are able to see mechanism of causation (which is very hard topic on its own), than I do not see your conclusion. The UE may break from that apparent period after time,space period that is too big or too small for you to measure or assume.

That is something different. Events with an unknown cause or events without a cause. The latter in my reasoning do not exist.
 
  • #35
"The latter in my reasoning do not exist."

I don't see it follow from your reasoning. Plus one cannot distinguish uncaused and not-known cause events in reality. However, your reasoning does not show that they cannot exist. (I can think of at least observable not caused :D, hint:big bang, that's happening at all places at all times)
 
<h2>What does modern physics say about uncaused effects?</h2><p>Modern physics suggests that there are certain phenomena and events that occur without a discernible cause. This concept is known as "uncaused effects" or "spontaneous events".</p><h2>How do uncaused effects fit into the laws of physics?</h2><p>Uncaused effects challenge the traditional understanding of causality in physics, which states that every effect has a specific cause. However, some theories, such as quantum mechanics, suggest that there are inherent uncertainties and probabilities in the behavior of particles, allowing for uncaused effects to occur.</p><h2>Can uncaused effects be observed in the real world?</h2><p>There are several examples of uncaused effects that have been observed in the real world, such as radioactive decay and the spontaneous creation of particle-antiparticle pairs. These events are unpredictable and do not have a discernible cause.</p><h2>Do uncaused effects disprove determinism?</h2><p>Determinism is the philosophical belief that all events are determined by previous causes. Uncaused effects challenge this idea, as they suggest that there are events that occur without a specific cause. However, it is important to note that uncaused effects do not necessarily disprove determinism, but rather offer a different perspective on causality.</p><h2>How do uncaused effects impact our understanding of the universe?</h2><p>Uncaused effects have significant implications for our understanding of the universe and the laws of physics. They suggest that there may be inherent randomness and unpredictability in the behavior of particles and events, which could have a significant impact on our understanding of the fundamental workings of the universe.</p>

What does modern physics say about uncaused effects?

Modern physics suggests that there are certain phenomena and events that occur without a discernible cause. This concept is known as "uncaused effects" or "spontaneous events".

How do uncaused effects fit into the laws of physics?

Uncaused effects challenge the traditional understanding of causality in physics, which states that every effect has a specific cause. However, some theories, such as quantum mechanics, suggest that there are inherent uncertainties and probabilities in the behavior of particles, allowing for uncaused effects to occur.

Can uncaused effects be observed in the real world?

There are several examples of uncaused effects that have been observed in the real world, such as radioactive decay and the spontaneous creation of particle-antiparticle pairs. These events are unpredictable and do not have a discernible cause.

Do uncaused effects disprove determinism?

Determinism is the philosophical belief that all events are determined by previous causes. Uncaused effects challenge this idea, as they suggest that there are events that occur without a specific cause. However, it is important to note that uncaused effects do not necessarily disprove determinism, but rather offer a different perspective on causality.

How do uncaused effects impact our understanding of the universe?

Uncaused effects have significant implications for our understanding of the universe and the laws of physics. They suggest that there may be inherent randomness and unpredictability in the behavior of particles and events, which could have a significant impact on our understanding of the fundamental workings of the universe.

Similar threads

  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
7
Views
634
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
663
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
707
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
765
Replies
5
Views
841
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
12
Views
1K
Back
Top