Recent content by Borean

Thats not what I meant. I will quote what I already said (to your post actually): DrChinese: Well, it would be a good hint (in favor of causality) if you could set up the same scenario and get the same result every time. Borean: That assumes that you can ever set up two identical...

It's not actually a "philosophical" invention of mine. It's a premise for Bell's findings to hold true.

No, not at all. I am only saying that I reject the premise that you can succesfully replicate "two identical scenario". That premise would be a requirement before you could expect two scenario to be fully "causally" identical, or indeed to conclude acausality if the scenario were not...

That assumes that you can ever set up two identical scenario, just because you are dealing with the same kind of particle or event. I don't assume this. To the contrary, you can never set up the same scenario, because scenario will always be separated either in time or space. I don't know. Are...

That is not a "reason". There are theoretical claims that all possibilities occur. But per Occams Razor, I would think there are much simpler and more minimalistic explanations for the same empirical data. But anyway, the many-worlds interpretation doesn't live up to abandoning the causal...

The problem I have with this proposition is that, if we define "causality" is the "principle that events need certain necessary and sufficient conditions to come into existence" and we define "cause" or the effect of that cause as the actuality of living up to any necessary and sufficient...

Inded it seems that "causal" and "acausal" tends to be used as an exaggeration of, very simply "unpredictable" or "indeterminable". Physicists may be good at doing physics, but they are very bad at being sensitive about the metaphysics and philosophy implicit in their own statements.

It seems you don't agree with each other. I can only guess, then, that there is no consensus? To the causalists who said that causality is preserved in quantum theory: how do you answer the above post?

Interesting insight.

Could anyone answer this?

What do you mean? The Bohmian model isn't QM? It sounds like the Bohmian model exactly admits to agnosticism/indeterminacy in the human epistemic realm. A more likely explanation, in my opinion.

Of course. My only point is that the indeterminacy need not be an inherent attribute of the observed thing, that is, "acausality"; it may as well lie in the observer. Being a skeptic, I find it much more likely that the indeterminism is in the epistemic realm, not the natural realm. If we...

That wasn't my point really. My point was that even if we don't know or can't know the cause of a given thing, that in no way means there is no cause for given thing.

Can anyone tell me what is the cause of the phenomenon known as quantum tunnelling? And additionally, the cause of the phenomenon of vacuum fluctuations or virtual particles?

Again, that is indeterminacy, not acausality.