What does modern physics say about uncaused effects

  • Thread starter VonWeber
  • Start date
47
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

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.
 

Answers and Replies

377
0
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.
 
242
0
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.
 
47
0
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?
 
377
0
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?

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.

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.

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.
 
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:
377
0
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.

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.
 
242
0
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:
377
0
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:

We can, however, believe things that we will never know.
Yes. People tend to believe whatever makes them feel better.
 
242
0
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:
377
0
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?
 
1,476
0
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.
 
452
0
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:
242
0
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.
 
242
0
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.
 
377
0
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.
 
1,596
0
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 seperate 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
 
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,337
1,941
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:
242
0
.
A statement or argument that is using a baseless assumption [which insists on treating being and nonbeing as absolutely seperate 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:
242
0
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:
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,337
1,941
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.
 
1,596
0
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).
 
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,337
1,941
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.
 
242
0
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.
 
242
0
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.
 

Related Threads for: What does modern physics say about uncaused effects

Replies
31
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
42
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
Top