Can any event occur that has no cause?

[needimprovement]

What does the subject question imply? That things can happen magically/accidentally without cause? That micro events can flit in and out of existence based on zero history, nor initial conditions? If all events do in fact have causes, then does this require one to accept an objective reality? If we accept the well known response of: 'the Universe makes a choice', does this not require an objective reality that is making the choice?

Edited October 3, 2010 by needimprovement

[iNow]

Just because we don't YET understand something doesn't mean it's "magic" or causeless.

[needimprovement]

Just because we don't YET understand something doesn't mean it's "magic" or causeless.

Can you think of any reason excluding the concepts of space, time and cause and effect?

[Sisyphus]

There is no logical necessity that everything must have a cause. In everyday life, we are just used to seeing consistency in the order of events we observe, and fallaciously take that consistency as some kind of law of existence. In fact, it appears that our universe does not operate that way, and strict causality is an illusion of statistics. Saying "the universe makes a choice" is a poor way of saying it, IMO, because it implies cause (albeit vaguely), when the absence of such is precisely the point.

[cypress]

In fact, it appears that our universe does not operate that way, and strict causality is an illusion of statistics.

 

Interesting, can you please provide an example and sources for the "fact" that our physical universe appears to not operate in accordance with cause and effect?

[John Cuthber]

My Geiger counter, which is next to a small blob of uranium, just went click.

At atom of Uranium has just decayed.

Why did it do it then, rather than last week or next Christmas?

There is certainly no known cause and, it seems, there is no "cause"- it just happens.

[Imaginary Number]

Yes & No.

 

Spontaneous things can happen out of the blue, but they wouldn't happen if the thing from which they were spontaneously emmitted, didn't exist. So if a radioactive substance didn't exist then neither would any following emmisions.

Edited October 3, 2010 by Imaginary Number

[DrmDoc]

My Geiger counter, which is next to a small blob of uranium, just went click.

At atom of Uranium has just decayed.

Why did it do it then, rather than last week or next Christmas?

There is certainly no known cause and, it seems, there is no "cause"- it just happens.

 

I'm no physic's expert, but your example doesn't seem to be a very good one. Just because we don't know or understand why a uranium atom decaded at that precise moment doesn't mean there is no explanation or cause for that moment of decay. Your example appears to illuminate the depths of our ignorance on decaying uranium blobs solely rather than some empirical lack of causality in that decay--in my opinion.

[John Cuthber]

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

[Imaginary Number]

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

 

 

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

[cypress]

My Geiger counter, which is next to a small blob of uranium, just went click.

At atom of Uranium has just decayed.

Why did it do it then, rather than last week or next Christmas?

There is certainly no known cause and, it seems, there is no "cause"- it just happens.

 

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

[Mr Skeptic]

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

 

There's plenty of unstable nuclei that haven't decayed. Instability is not a sufficient cause for both the decayed and undecayed nuclei.

 

---

 

Let me go with a slightly better understood example, with astronomy. Solar systems can "decay" and fling an object out of them. What is the cause? Really its a string of continuous cause and effect, you can't usually point out "there -- that's the cause". I'm not sure if this is relevant to the quantum version though.

[mooeypoo]

I think this OP question, honestly, depends on context. If we discuss it under scientific terminology (as it's in the science section) then at least as far as science is concerned, that's irrelevant -- we endeavor to FIND the cause of everything, even if we don't know it yet.

 

However, if you ask this philosophically (and if that's the case, we should move the thread to philosophy) the answer might be different. It will, however, no longer rely on what science is about anymore.

[needimprovement]

I think this OP question, honestly, depends on context. If we discuss it under scientific terminology (as it's in the science section) then at least as far as science is concerned, that's irrelevant -- we endeavor to FIND the cause of everything, even if we don't know it yet.

 

However, if you ask this philosophically (and if that's the case, we should move the thread to philosophy) the answer might be different. It will, however, no longer rely on what science is about anymore.

Please move this thread to philosophy section. I think it's valuable to link the study of philosophy to the study of physics.

 

Thank you.

[Zolar V]

Please move this thread to philosophy section. I think it's valuable to link the study of philosophy to the study of physics.

 

Thank you.

 

I doubt the value of linking so drastic a study. Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.

Whereas science, and in this case physics, rely not on mere thoughts and ideas. But rather physics relies on statistics, analysis, and hypothesis founded in measurable and testable data.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

[cypress]

There's plenty of unstable nuclei that haven't decayed. Instability is not a sufficient cause for both the decayed and undecayed nuclei.

 

---

 

Let me go with a slightly better understood example, with astronomy. Solar systems can "decay" and fling an object out of them. What is the cause? Really its a string of continuous cause and effect, you can't usually point out "there -- that's the cause". I'm not sure if this is relevant to the quantum version though.

 

I doubt though that you are suggesting that either is an example of the kind of supposed fact that this universe apparently does not operate according to cause and effect that sisyphus has thus far failed to describe.

[needimprovement]

My Geiger counter, which is next to a small blob of uranium, just went click.

At atom of Uranium has just decayed.

Why did it do it then, rather than last week or next Christmas?

There is certainly no known cause and, it seems, there is no "cause"- it just happens.

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.

[iNow]

Events CANNOT occur without a cause,

Well, that's a pretty fancy assertion you've just made there, my man... But I sure would like to see you support it with evidence. Right now, the only support you have is the rectum from which you pulled the assertion.

 

 

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.

Word salad.

[lemur]

Does causation have a cause?

[needimprovement]

There's plenty of unstable nuclei that haven't decayed. Instability is not a sufficient cause for both the decayed and undecayed nuclei.

Isn't it radatio active decay a statistically determined?

 

Does causation have a cause?

 

Would you ask the question, "What letter comes before the letter 'A' in the alphabet?"

 

Obviously 'A' is the first letter, it's the beginning, nothing comes before it

 

I doubt the value of linking so drastic a study. Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.

Whereas science, and in this case physics, rely not on mere thoughts and ideas. But rather physics relies on statistics, analysis, and hypothesis founded in measurable and testable data.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

We can't really apply our universe's laws of physics (time, causality, etc.) to something outside our universe.

 

This is hard for us to understand because we are so immersed in this universe and its systems. What's it like to be outside of time? Can a fish who's spent his whole life at the bottom of the sea imagine what it's like to be dry?

Edited October 4, 2010 by needimprovement

[lemur]

Would you ask the question, "What letter comes before the letter 'A' in the alphabet?"

 

Obviously there is no point in asking it because 'A' is the first letter, it's the beginning, nothing comes before it

 

 

So causation itself is the beginning without antecedence so causation itself has no cause? How ironic.

[needimprovement]

So causation itself is the beginning without antecedence so causation itself has no cause? How ironic.

It is impossible that only finite things exist because then everything would have undetermined limitations, which is a contradiction. Therefore, if anything at all exists, and it is apparent that something does, then there must be at least one infinite being that determined all other things.

[lemur]

It is impossible that only finite things exist because then everything would have undetermined limitations, which is a contradiction. Therefore, if anything at all exists, and it is apparent that something does, then there must be at least one infinite being that determined all other things.

Aren't these just definitional/nominal issues? Aren't finite-ness and infinite-ness questions of framing relative to other things? What does all this have to do with the cause of causation? To me, causation is an analytical extrapolation of something that is inherently undefined in nature. I would guess it would be possible to develop a consciousness that conceptualizes all empirical events in terms of isolatedness from other events, thus rendering causation unimaginable. So the question becomes, what causes causation at the subjective level. But without even taking it that deep, there is an irony in the fact that epistemology breaks with the logic of cause and effect to the extent that it is rooted in cognitive voluntarism rather than physical determinism. Still, I tend to attribute causal determinism to logical sequences even though I know it is ultimately my own volition that enables me to reason out the logical consequences of ideas. Some people are able to simply reason on the basis of sequential associations instead of logic, which while frustrating demonstrates that cognition is not enslaved to reason.

[Moontanman]

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

Edited October 4, 2010 by Moontanman

[Sisyphus]

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.

 

To understand what is meant by "not necessary," it might help to really think about what it is we mean by "cause," and how we originally come to the intuitive conclusion that it IS necessary. We see that events we observe are in repetitive and therefore predictable patterns. That's it. Is there any reason such patterns are a necessary and unending property of anything that might possibly exist?