Can any event occur that has no cause?

[Mr Skeptic]

I think it's important to ask "Can we say an event has no cause?" How can we know an event has no cause?

 

That is how I feel too. And yet my understanding of quantum mechanics is that it is supposed to have true randomness, so that the results cannot have a cause. In particular there's supposed to not be any hidden variable that would explain the results (Bell's Inequality). So while something generic could be said such as the measurement taking a certain value due to "wavefunction collapse" or the particle decaying because it is "unstable", that can't tell you why it collapsed to that particular value or why it decayed at that particular time.

[needimprovement]

That is how I feel too. And yet my understanding of quantum mechanics is that it is supposed to have true randomness, so that the results cannot have a cause. In particular there's supposed to not be any hidden variable that would explain the results (Bell's Inequality). So while something generic could be said such as the measurement taking a certain value due to "wavefunction collapse" or the particle decaying because it is "unstable", that can't tell you why it collapsed to that particular value or why it decayed at that particular time.

To believe in the truly random is to believe in the supernatural. By definition the supernatural is "beyond natural law".

 

Supernatural

adjective

1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

Edited October 4, 2010 by needimprovement

[Mr Skeptic]

So quantum mechanics is supernatural then?

[needimprovement]

So quantum mechanics is supernatural then?

and miracle is quantum mechanics?

Edited October 4, 2010 by needimprovement

[Serena2003]

Although it may not be entirely impossible, it is incredibly difficult to determine as the infinite string of causation may be just be a closed circulation, constantly repeating the same patterns of cause and effect. But as stated, if prior causes can no longer be detected or testable, it is becomes philosophy and no longer science. But even occurrences at random still have a cause whether or not that cause contains any reason, expectancy or pattern.

[lemur]

Although it may not be entirely impossible, it is incredibly difficult to determine as the infinite string of causation may be just be a closed circulation, constantly repeating the same patterns of cause and effect. But as stated, if prior causes can no longer be detected or testable, it is becomes philosophy and no longer science. But even occurrences at random still have a cause whether or not that cause contains any reason, expectancy or pattern.

 

Science is a branch of philosophy. That's why science degrees are called "PhD," which means doctor of philosophy.

[DrmDoc]

What is the difference between something that has no cause and something which has a cause that cannot be known?

 

 

What "cannot be known" is only evidence of a limit to our understanding of a phenomenon rather than the nonexistence of a cause for that phenomenon. To believe otherwise is analogous to suggesting that what we don't see, doesn't exist because it is beyond our spectrum of vision. When we close our eyes, does the world cease to exist because we can't see it? Does a cause not exist because it is not known or has not been determined? In another well known example, does a falling tree make a sound when no one is there to hear it? I think it best to suggest that a cause exist for a phenomenon with the caveat that its cause has yet to be determined when that cause is unknown or unknowable. Any thought to the contrary borders on the supernatural rather than science--in my opinion.

Edited October 4, 2010 by DrmDoc

[michel123456]

Mooyepoo is right. The cause-effect concept is so fundamental that when no cause is observed, we continue searching.

Note: of course, we are searching the cause in the past of the effect. Otherwise things are the same bizarre as effects without cause.

[John Cuthber]

One of them has a cause while the other does not.

 

OK, so I should have asked how do you tell the difference...

 

The cause is known. Radioactive decay is caused by and is a result of unstable nuclei.

 

It was just as radioactive last Christmas. What (as I asked before ) caused it to decay at that time?

 

Events CANNOT occur without a cause, however, it is impossible to represent absolute nothingness in real life - and hence, there will always be a cause for something to happen.I find it highly unlikely that, if the universe itself has a fundamental structure that causes things to happen even in its most reduced form, then it is very likely that the structure of the universe causes minute things to happen all the time...things that are not caused entirely by other particles/waves/strings. Perhaps this is the reason that we see uncertainty in QM...not because it is non-deterministic, but because the very fabric of the universe imposes an ever-present non-local deterministic influence.

 

Your assertion seems to be at odds with the evidence.

Please tell me the cause of the decay that happened and made my counter go click.

[Imaginary Number]

Does causation have a cause?

 

"causation" is not a proper noun. It is incorrect to use it in the way you have, which is why it is nonsense.

Another example would be "What is bluer than blue?"

Anything "bluer" would obviously just be blue.

[Serena2003]

Science is a branch of philosophy. That's why science degrees are called "PhD," which means doctor of philosophy.

 

Many scientists even with a doctorate would beg to differ because science deals with facts as philosophy deals with untestable concepts and subjective views. Science would include knowledge while philosophy would question if knowledge can be attained. It is considered useless to science and technology. But science had a different perception during the Middle Ages when the earliest Ph.D was bestowed, even theology was considered a science then. They do award doctorates of science, but they are probably not as standard as the traditional Ph.D.

[John Cuthber]

(as if it matters)

If I got round to picking up my degree it would be a BA (Hons) in chemistry.

The name of the degree really doesn't mean a lot, it's usually a historical thing.

 

Imaginary number;

you need to find out what a proper noun is.

Death, for examples isn't usually one*, but it has a cause.

 

* Except in Terry Pratchet novels etc.

[Sisyphus]

To believe in the truly random is to believe in the supernatural. By definition the supernatural is "beyond natural law".

 

Supernatural

adjective

1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

 

If randomness is part of what naturally occurs, then it isn't supernatural, is it?

 

and miracle is quantum mechanics?

 

I don't know what this means.

[lemur]

"causation" is not a proper noun. It is incorrect to use it in the way you have, which is why it is nonsense.

Another example would be "What is bluer than blue?"

Anything "bluer" would obviously just be blue.

 

It's more like saying, "Does cessation ever cease?," or "does dominance dominate?" It's not nonsense. It is just presuming that the fact of determination or causation in the physical universe could be caused or determined by something more than the mechanical nature of matter-energy itself. It's not nonsense. It's just a different level of analysis. Like asking what causes conservation of matter/energy. Technically, conservation of matter/energy is just a generalization about the behavior of matter-energy, but if you thought of it as a determining principle of that behavior, then you could ask if it has a cause other than the inherent nature of the phenomena.

 

Many scientists even with a doctorate would beg to differ because science deals with facts as philosophy deals with untestable concepts and subjective views. Science would include knowledge while philosophy would question if knowledge can be attained. It is considered useless to science and technology. But science had a different perception during the Middle Ages when the earliest Ph.D was bestowed, even theology was considered a science then. They do award doctorates of science, but they are probably not as standard as the traditional Ph.D.

 

To me, the reason science is a philosophy is because there is reasoning involved in deciding what constitutes a fact and why. Empiricism is a philosophical issue, as is positivism. When I hear scientists brush off philosophy in favor of claiming that their facts are simply self-evident, I wouldn't call such people scientists but rather technicians. Yes, they can work with facts but can they critically theorize about them as masters of their own theories and methodologies? Probably not. More likely they just tap into someone else's methodology or theory and perform testing of some aspect of that theory. Yes, such people get awarded PhDs as a form of professional recognition and for job status. Are they masters of the philosophy behind the work they do though? Many people are not; they just apply what others have theorized and philosophized without critically engaging those theories/philosophies.

[needimprovement]

Anything "bluer" would obviously just be blue.

Blue can also mean "sad" in English, so bluer than blue can mean "depressed".

 

It's more like saying, "Does cessation ever cease?," or "does dominance dominate?" It's not nonsense.

Yes, it is not. And dominate will not exist if there is no dominance. The cause is dominance.

 

Science is a branch of philosophy. That's why science degrees are called "PhD," which means doctor of philosophy.

and homosapiens means "wise man"?

 

wise and wisecrackers

Edited October 5, 2010 by needimprovement

[lemur]

Yes, it is not. And dominate will not exist if there is no dominance. The cause is dominance.

 

In theory, maybe, but in practice the causes of domination is submission to the will of another. Now, what are the causes of submission . . .

Dominance generally need not be dominant. It is possible for equality to be dominant and for domination/submission to play a non-dominant role in culture. Think of gender egalitarianism where people still use domination/submission for erotic stimulation. Dealing with these kinds of issues purely at the level of abstract logic doesn't always work. You need concrete examples to consider how things work in practice.

[needimprovement]

"causation" is not a proper noun. It is incorrect to use it in the way you have, which is why it is nonsense.

Another example would be "What is bluer than blue?"

Anything "bluer" would obviously just be blue.

Your question asking what is bluer than blue? is it a meaningless question?

 

Like what Hawking is supposed to have said:

 

Asking what comes before the Big Bang:

 

• ...is like asking, what is north of North Pole? which is a meaningless question
  

 

To my thinking, no it is not a meaningless question, unless your idea of meaningful questions is a priori limited to a self-chosen field of questions which does not admit of any questions outside; like for example the world of the Big Bang, so that the world of the Big Bang is the only world you want to think about, and nothing outside should engage your intelligence -- which is to my thinking very unintelligent.

 

Is there a world outside the Big Bang world?

 

Of course there is, on intelligent thinking alone, because experts of the Big Bang world tell us that it has a beginning, that is why.

 

Is there a north beyond the north pole?

 

Of course yes, because there is a point that is more farther north of the north pole.

 

Simple intelligent thinking.

 

Unless you have reached the last frontier of the north pole beyond which you cannot anymore not even in your imagination conjure a point more north, so that you can say non plus ultra.

 

 

In regard to something more blue than another thing that depends on your eye.

 

But in regard to what is north of the north pole that depends upon your intelligent thinking.

[Moontanman]

Name a point that is further north than the North Pole...

[Mr Skeptic]

Name a point that is further north than the North Pole...

 

The North Star.

[Moontanman]

The North Star.

 

 

No, that is like saying you can step outside the universe and see the big bang from a distance, the North Star is not part of the Earth...

[Marat]

Since philosophy of science deals all the time with such questions as are raised in this thread, I think it would be reasonable for the thread to be kept within the philosophy section.

 

The usual answer to this question in the philosophy of science is that quantum mechanics throws doubt on the extension of the law of cause and effect to all things in nature, since electrons shift from one energy level to another for no assignable reason, and thus 'without a cause.' However, as a general rule, we assert that nothing in nature happens without a cause, since only if things are caused by processes external to them can we do science, because science explains things in terms of mathematically characterized relations of time and space, and the only things which are displayed over time and space are causes external to whatever acts. If something acted without cause, that is, from some hidden prompting within itself, then the cause could not be identified or displayed in the space-time structure which is necessary for explanations to become mathematizable and thus scientific. A world in which things happened without a cause would be a pan-animistic world with bricks falling, stones rolling, clouds dissipating, and earthquakes occurring just because they felt like it, rather than because something external drove them to occur. It would be hylozoistic, or a world literally of 'living wood,' with everything being animate, like in a cartoon, with no external, analyzable, visible causes, but rather, just with internal, hidden, and thus mysterious promptings.

 

To make morality possible, however, which depends on praise and blame being deserved, we have to pretend that cause does not apply to the actions of just one thing in nature, which is humans. Kant developed the ingenious solution for this anomaly by saying we can have two simultaneously inconsistent interpretations of the world, assuming for morality that if we ultimately traced out all the causal links visible in the world, we would find that humans are free rather than that their action is caused, while assuming for science, in contrast, that if we traced out all the causal links in the world we would eventually find that everything is caused.

[pioneer]

The modern concept of time has no cause. If time had a cause, it would imply a connection to something even more fundamental, which creates the effect we call time. As an abstraction, time expresses an effect that we measure, but without any logical cause. Relativity can alter this effect, that has no cause.

Edited October 8, 2010 by pioneer

[cypress]

Radioactive decay is hardly the only example, but it will do. We see no indication that there is any particular reason one atom decays and not another within a given time frame. Perhaps there is some unknowable hidden variable and perhaps not, but it certainly isn't necessary. Not scientifically, not philosophically.

 

Radioactive decay necessarily requires an unstable nuclei. It may not be sufficient, but it does seem to be necessary, so it seems more accurate to say that at least one cause of radioactive decay is an unstable nuclei.

 

How could one tell the difference between a supernatural cause and uncaused? If it is not possible to tell the difference, then why should we conclude that something for which a cause is unknown is without a cause?

[Marat]

Postivism is the basic working philosophy of scientific explanation, and it states that nothing should ever be posited to exist unless it is clearly confirmed by empirical data or a necessary implication of empirical data. So if we find an uncaused event and can't perform a test to determine whether that means the event was caused by a supernatural agent or just uncaused, we have to assume it was just uncaused, since that is required by the explanatory and inferential economy insisted upon by positivism.

[Mr Skeptic]

Radioactive decay necessarily requires an unstable nuclei. It may not be sufficient, but it does seem to be necessary, so it seems more accurate to say that at least one cause of radioactive decay is an unstable nuclei.

 

I don't think it works that way. Only living things ever die, so does that make living a cause of death?

 

How could one tell the difference between a supernatural cause and uncaused? If it is not possible to tell the difference, then why should we conclude that something for which a cause is unknown is without a cause?

 

True enough. So then, supernatural causes can't ever be a scientific hypothesis since "uncaused" is a simpler explanation than "supernatural cause" and if they both explain equally well then the simpler one is chosen.