What does modern physics say about uncaused effects

[sneez]

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)

 

[heusdens]

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.

 

[sneez]

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.

 

[heusdens]

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.

 

[sneez]

"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)

 

[heusdens]

"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)

Well the general assumption of cosmologists is that the big bang had prior states. See inflationary cosmology.

 

[out of whack]

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.

This makes scientific sense, which essentially means statistical sense. If we can modify some experimental conditions in a way that affects the occurrence of what we suspect to be uncaused events then this really suggests a hidden cause rather than no cause at all for these particular events. If we can do it fifty times then we have statistical evidence. If we can repeat it a million times then we have extremely strong statistical evidence and we write it up as a scientific theory. This is still not philosophical proof due to the possibility of infinite time and/or space: these ensure that our world and all its seemingly caused events could in theory be one of the infinite random occurrences simply because infinity is big enough to permit it. Of course, infinite time and/or space is not a sure thing either, so we're no further ahead either way.

What is more relevant, uncaused events may also occur without anyone noticing. If something unexpected happens in an experiment and you repeat it without the strange occurrence ever repeating itself then most people would call it a fluke and move on to other things. Since you truly could not reproduce any uncaused events, there is no way you could ever hope to study them.

Finally, certain sub-atomic events may be adequately described using a no-cause model but they may actually follow a yet-to-be-discovered causal model instead. Even so, this does not rule out other uncaused events.

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.

That effects could occur all the time is one possibility, I speculated about it in an earlier post. But it is not necessarily the case. While there would be zero restriction to their occurrence by lack of the necessity of any cause, it does not follow that they must be infinite production. We just don't have any way to determine how frequently they would occur. Their frequency would be entirely undetermined, it could be anything from 0 to infinity and with any type of frequency distribution. No causes means no rules, anything goes.

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.

I don't think you have shown that things are either all caused or all non-caused.

 

[sneez]

Well the general assumption of cosmologists is that the big bang had prior states. See inflationary cosmology

actually prior states says nothing about causality.

Plus if you subscribe into sub-atomic universe than the entire universe is un-causingly flickering in and out of the existence faster than we can imagine.

This makes scientific sense, which essentially means statistical sense. If we can modify some experimental conditions in a way that affects the occurrence of what we suspect to be uncaused events then this really suggests a hidden cause rather than no cause at all for these particular events. If we can do it fifty times then we have statistical evidence. If we can repeat it a million times then we have extremely strong statistical evidence and we write it up as a scientific theory. This is still not philosophical proof due to the possibility of infinite time and/or space: these ensure that our world and all its seemingly caused events could in theory be one of the infinite random occurrences simply because infinity is big enough to permit it. Of course, infinite time and/or space is not a sure thing either, so we're no further ahead either way.

Even though this is restatement of what husdens said, i cannot subscribe to this correlation implies causation. Let us remember that we will observe only what we want to observe. One cannot make infinite (all applicable) number of variables observable. Thats one practical limitation. A philosophical one that we prepare experiments with specific questions in mind, seeking for answers. So whatever enters into experiment which we priory do not consider will not be observed -> may be included in random error, and or other techniques of "NOISE" removal. [Something such as random noise may be very well result of uncaused events NO matter what you change there will always be random noise in your measurement.]

Note, that I am not saying UE happen. I am saying on purely philosophical grounds nobody here showed that UE cannot happen.

As we dwell deeper, it shows that we are not even ready to detect them if we don't postulate them. [Decay of particles as far as we know is uncaused].

One more thought: Since we will never be able to predictably observe UE can we ever detect it. I think not. [at least in dualistic approach]

 

[whatta]

It would be enlightening if you could explain HOW something could literally appear out of nothing.

explaining "HOW" is not a problem; let's denote quantity of unnamed "something" by Q, then you can construct a function like Q(t) = t + |t| and be happy with it, can't you.

 

[sd01g]

explaining "HOW" is not a problem; let's denote quantity of unnamed "something" by Q, then you can construct a function like Q(t) = t + |t| and be happy with it, can't you.

It is easier to say: something=Q, nothing=Q, therefore: something=nothing. Or, perhaps, that food can be pepared to produce a MEAL and claim that before the meal, there was ONLY food, therefore: the essence of the MEAL came from being of the nonbeing in the transformation of the essence of nonbeing into the being of the MEAL.

 

[whatta]

food can be pepared to produce a MEAL and claim that before the meal, there was ONLY food, therefore: the essence of the MEAL came from being of the nonbeing in the transformation of the essence of nonbeing into the being of the MEAL.

can't we say that there always was MEAL, in some kind of multi-dimensional "space", and appearance (and devouring) of your meal was simply MEAL crossing our "hyperplane".

(my point here is that "HOW" is just a question of model, that can be chosen almost arbitrary, and does not explain a thing)

 

[sd01g]

can't we say that there always was MEAL, in some kind of multi-dimensional "space", and appearance (and devouring) of your meal was simply MEAL crossing our "hyperplane".

(my point here is that "HOW" is just a question of model, that can be chosen almost arbitrary, and does not explain a thing)

If only Hegel were alive, he would know. The great thing about 'creative' philosophy is that there are so many opportunities to speculate. One must, however, realize that even 'creative' philosophy does have its limitations.

 

[heusdens]

It is easier to say: something=Q, nothing=Q, therefore: something=nothing. Or, perhaps, that food can be pepared to produce a MEAL and claim that before the meal, there was ONLY food, therefore: the essence of the MEAL came from being of the nonbeing in the transformation of the essence of nonbeing into the being of the MEAL.

Hmmmm.

Don't think Hegel would approve of this kind of misuse of his dialectics...

 

[heusdens]

What is more relevant, uncaused events may also occur without anyone noticing. If something unexpected happens in an experiment and you repeat it without the strange occurrence ever repeating itself then most people would call it a fluke and move on to other things. Since you truly could not reproduce any uncaused events, there is no way you could ever hope to study them.

The point I made is, since we would expect that to be the case, that every measurement we make is affected by such uncaused events, how can we ever measure something and make predictions, etc.?
If would limit our possibility in making any sense of any measurement.
How can there be predictability (based on causality) if there is also unpredictability?

That effects could occur all the time is one possibility, I speculated about it in an earlier post. But it is not necessarily the case. While there would be zero restriction to their occurrence by lack of the necessity of any cause, it does not follow that they must be infinite production. We just don't have any way to determine how frequently they would occur. Their frequency would be entirely undetermined, it could be anything from 0 to infinity and with any type of frequency distribution. No causes means no rules, anything goes.

Well, they must happen everywhere and at all times.


But I think we need to discuss this issue in more practical terms, since this kind of phenomena (ascribed to virtual particles, emerging everywhere due to the Heizenberg uncertainty principle) do happen and in real measurements have to be taken into account.

For example the Casimir effect.

 

[sneez]

How can there be predictability (based on causality) if there is also unpredictability?

random noise is very much part of any and all measurement. If you are not trying to be precise about measurement that's fine, if you are, behold!

Yup, we prefer middle world points of view and philosophy...

 

[out of whack]

every measurement we make is affected by such uncaused events, how can we ever measure something and make predictions, etc.?
If would limit our possibility in making any sense of any measurement.
How can there be predictability (based on causality) if there is also unpredictability?

Sneez has already mentionned precision. The possibility of uncaused events does not imply their exclusivity and there may very well be a mix of both. At this time and in this space, there appear to be more caused events than uncaused ones. We cannot claim that "every measurement we make is affected by such uncaused events" unless we canshow how for every caused event there is also an uncaused one. But we do not know that.

Well, they must happen everywhere and at all times.

Why is that? According to what rule? If you mean that they must be *possible* everywhere and at all times then I agree. But this possibility does not dictate that a particular pattern necessarily exists. It does not imply that the distribution of uncaused events must be uniform, or follow a normal distribution, or any such thing. Mandating this would impose rules on events that cannot have any.

But I think we need to discuss this issue in more practical terms

I think physicists must do that but not philosophers. Physics models can inspire but they remain falsifiable models that can never be conclusive.

 

[heusdens]

Why is that? According to what rule? If you mean that they must be *possible* everywhere and at all times then I agree. But this possibility does not dictate that a particular pattern necessarily exists. It does not imply that the distribution of uncaused events must be uniform, or follow a normal distribution, or any such thing. Mandating this would impose rules on events that cannot have any.

By definition there is no rule. Because of that, there is no rule that would avoid them occurring in some cases.

 

[whatta]

that's just great. no rule to force them happen, no rule to avoid them occurring.

some "thought experiment":

looking back on 4D world model (space + time), the 4D world is essentially static, unless we add 5th dimension (and thus go for multiple worlds). so, in this static world, every event has some specific coordinates. if we could somehow place ourselves outside of this world into some sort of imaginary "time machine", and witness any event of our choise, we would use event coordinates to predict event to happen in some place and some time, including "uncaused" events.

isn't it a weird situation: we say, "this will happen in a minute", and it happens, absolutely necessary, but without cause? my imagination is broken, I just can't imagine such an event.

 

[heusdens]

that's just great. no rule to force them happen, no rule to avoid them occurring.

some "thought experiment":

looking back on 4D world model (space + time), the 4D world is essentially static, unless we add 5th dimension (and thus go for multiple worlds). so, in this static world, every event has some specific coordinates. if we could somehow place ourselves outside of this world into some sort of imaginary "time machine", and witness any event of our choise, we would use event coordinates to predict event to happen in some place and some time, including "uncaused" events.

isn't it a weird situation: we say, "this will happen in a minute", and it happens, absolutely necessary, but without cause? my imagination is broken, I just can't imagine such an event.

I don't know if this is true, since it would reflect on the world, including the future as already laid out deterministically.
We think of the future as indeterministic (although in many ways it does not) and in which we do have a choice in our own actions. I don't know if one can rule out choices completely. We might never know if that is the case or not, since even if we think we make a free choice, it still could be deterministic.

 

[mosassam]

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?

Check out quantum non-locality, EPR-Bell experiments, Bell's Theorem (and experiments performed by some dude called Dr Aspect of Orsay on the recommendation of David Bohm). Non-locality may be the most bizarre aspect of quantum theory. It has been successfully demonstrated to exist in scientific experiments but still seems too outlandish for most folk, who really like to ignore it. In short, two quantum particles that have interacted can be separated by a great distance. A measurement of the 'state' of one particle seems to instantly effect the 'state' of the other. It appears that information has traveled from one to the other except the word 'travelled' does not apply as this change happens instantaneously. The information that informs one particle of the state of the other 'arrives' without traveling and even light has to travel (ie: it moves faster than light). This effect can be viewed as "uncaused" because no 'cause' can exceed the speed of light. There may well be some kind of cause to it but an adequate explanation of it appears to be beyond the scope of science at this present moment.
Freaky stuff

 

[Tournesol]

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.

What's the evidence for an infinite chain of cause-and-effect preceding the BB?

Just because one side of question appears dogmatic, it doesn't mean the other isn't.