Can any event occur that has no cause?

[needimprovement]

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.

That's why there has to be a certain sense of order dictated beyond what man has control over. In a way, it's not supernatural, but natural in the sense that God oversees everything.

[needimprovement]

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?

If tachyons can't be directly observed, but must necessarily exist so that the rest of a model works, are they supernatural?

 

 

Shouldn't a distinction be made between uncaused and cause unknown?

Edited October 8, 2010 by needimprovement

[swansont]

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.

 

Citing "simple intelligent thinking" is not a replacement for an actual argument. By definition, there is nothing farther north than the north pole. Once you reach the north pole, all directions are south. Imagination doesn't enter into it. Equivocation is a logical fallacy.

[cypress]

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

 

Your example seems to be a straw man because the relationship is not of the same kind. The greater the instability the shorter is the half life, so there is a direct relationship between instability and nuclear decay. With life the relationship is different because things that are more alive are less prone to death.

 

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.

 

I don't see how one can say that uncaused is factually simpler. We don't know what physical laws are needed in order to allow for uncaused events just as we don't know what physical laws are needed in order to allow for a cause that transcends our universe to act on our universe, so your conclusion seems premature. Also, the beginning of this universe appears to fit better with a transcending cause than uncaused, so there appears to be some indication that our present physical laws may allow for transcendence giving transcending causes an edge.

[Moontanman]

Paul Davies has some easy to understand thoughts on this subject here

 

 

A typical quantum process is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event "just happened" at that moment, that's all. You cannot predict these occurrences. All you can do is give the probability-there is a fifty-fifty chance that a given nucleus will decay in, say, one hour. This uncertainty is not simply a result of our ignorance of all the little forces and influences that try to make the nucleus decay; it is inherent in nature itself, a basic part of quantum reality.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Moontanman

[Sisyphus]

Merely not knowing the cause of something is not sufficient reason to say it has no cause, and nobody is suggesting that. The key points are:

 

1) Logically, there is nothing self-contradictory or otherwise impossible about uncaused events.

 

2) This is not merely an academic possibilty, because some observed phenomena have characteristics that suggest that their cause is not merely unknown, but nonexistent.

 

However, 1 is not dependent on 2.

[Moontanman]

Then there is this guy.... from Cambridge

 

 

The bubble multiverse

The next aspect of the inflation theory, which was discovered by cosmologists, is that the early surge of expansion can become self-perpetuating in each piece of the Universe. So a region will surge, and within it there will be another little piece that suddenly surges again. It is like a foam of bubbles where each bubble creates more bubbles that expand too. You should think of each bubble in the foam as being rather like the whole of our visible part of our Universe today. If we could see outside of our bubble, we would see into another bubble in the foam where conditions are different.

[Mr Skeptic]

Your example seems to be a straw man because the relationship is not of the same kind. The greater the instability the shorter is the half life, so there is a direct relationship between instability and nuclear decay. With life the relationship is different because things that are more alive are less prone to death.

 

Sure. A person is "more alive" than a bacterium, and so can die at the level of personhood (brain death), at the organismal level, and at the cellular level. But perhaps a better example would be, death is caused by life expectancy. The shorter the life expectancy the sooner they die. Before you complain that this is circular reasoning do consider how we define instability to make a fair comparison.

 

I don't see how one can say that uncaused is factually simpler. We don't know what physical laws are needed in order to allow for uncaused events just as we don't know what physical laws are needed in order to allow for a cause that transcends our universe to act on our universe, so your conclusion seems premature. Also, the beginning of this universe appears to fit better with a transcending cause than uncaused, so there appears to be some indication that our present physical laws may allow for transcendence giving transcending causes an edge.

 

Well, just because you have trouble finding what physical laws could cause an uncaused event (hint: uncaused), doesn't mean that supernatural entities as a cause is somehow less entities than no cause (ie, simpler).

 

Though I do think that claiming something has no cause is unacceptable for science.

[Moontanman]

 

 

Though I do think that claiming something has no cause is unacceptable for science.

 

 

Paul Davies seems to think that some things having no cause is a fundamental part of physical reality see post #55...

[cypress]

Sure. A person is "more alive" than a bacterium, and so can die at the level of personhood (brain death), at the organismal level, and at the cellular level. But perhaps a better example would be, death is caused by life expectancy.

 

No, sorry that's no better.

 

Well, just because you have trouble finding what physical laws could cause an uncaused event (hint: uncaused), doesn't mean that supernatural entities as a cause is somehow less entities than no cause (ie, simpler).

 

Thank goodness I did not make the claim that one is simpler than the other since we don't know. Nor did I make an equivalence between permitting and causing something.

 

Though I do think that claiming something has no cause is unacceptable for science.

 

Indeed, it illustrates the lack of an explanation, and does not represent scientific comprehension.

 

And thus it seems science provides no insight with regard to the possibility of uncaused events.

 

Paul Davies seems to think that some things having no cause is a fundamental part of physical reality see post #55...

 

I don't see how uncertainty equals no cause. Can you demonstrate it does?

[Moontanman]

 

Indeed, it illustrates the lack of an explanation, and does not represent scientific comprehension.

 

And thus it seems science provides no insight with regard to the possibility of uncaused events.

 

 

Actually that's not true, having no cause is an intrinsic part of reality, it does not arise due to our inability to measure or to know the real cause...

[lemur]

Actually that's not true, having no cause is an intrinsic part of reality, it does not arise due to our inability to measure or to know the real cause...

 

Causation is a form of modeling. It is neither inherently existent nor non-existent in nature. In nature each event does what it does and leaves it open what will occur as a result of the consequences. Humans can analytically establish causal linkage as an abstraction. Animals can only do so as a practical consideration, e.g. when the dog knows not to pee on the rug or he'll get spanked. I don't think animals and most humans can differentiate between consequences that result from voluntary response and those that result from nature. For example, a dog can't distinguish between punishment and natural peril. If it gets very sick from eating something poisonous or just gets spanked for it, it just registers the pain. That is the basis for behaviorism. Only a sentient being can decipher causation as occurring naturally, I think.

[michel123456]

Actually that's not true, having no cause is an intrinsic part of reality, it does not arise due to our inability to measure or to know the real cause...

 

That is not my point of vue. Actually, I think it is completely wrong. Any statement with the word "intrinsic" must be wrong. I would suggest to review the definition of the word "cause" before making such statements.

 

Causation is a form of modeling. It is neither inherently existent nor non-existent in nature. In nature each event does what it does and leaves it open what will occur as a result of the consequences. Humans can analytically establish causal linkage as an abstraction. Animals can only do so as a practical consideration, e.g. when the dog knows not to pee on the rug or he'll get spanked. I don't think animals and most humans can differentiate between consequences that result from voluntary response and those that result from nature. For example, a dog can't distinguish between punishment and natural peril. If it gets very sick from eating something poisonous or just gets spanked for it, it just registers the pain. That is the basis for behaviorism. Only a sentient being can decipher causation as occurring naturally, I think.

 

Interesting, although very philosophic. Damned, we are in Philosophy...

 

Well, the dog behaves a certain way because he knows about his future punishment based on his experience. If an observator comes at a random time, not knowing anything about the dog's education, he may conclude that the cause of the dog's behaviour is in the future.

Edited October 9, 2010 by michel123456

[Moontanman]

Well since evidence doesn't seem to matter here, lemur, michel.... I think you're both totally wrong.

[John Cuthber]

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. .. in my opinion.

 

I has been proven that some questions are undecidable- the answer can not be known.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems

[pioneer]

Evolution is based on genetic changes that have no apparent cause. Once the effect occurs (changing DNA), it becomes the cause for the effect called selective advantage. This precess has so sense of direction, since there is no original cause.

 

Is this theory without original cause, due to lack of understanding?

[cypress]

Evolution is based on genetic changes that have no apparent cause. Once the effect occurs (changing DNA), it becomes the cause for the effect called selective advantage. This precess has so sense of direction, since there is no original cause.

 

Is this theory without original cause, due to lack of understanding?

 

Genetic error has a cause rooted in physical chemistry based on chemic affinity, reaction energy, chemic equilibrium and Brownian motion. These factors conspire to generate random variation at a regular rate. Biological processes that correct errors through use of biological information mitigate the errors so that only a few slip through. It would be incorrect to say that genetic errors have no cause.

 

The notion from Moontanman that having no cause is an intrinsic part of reality seems wrong as well. Cause and effect is the null hypothesis in our physical reality. I would be very interested in scientific demonstration of a real effect (an actual event with a beginning) that verifiably has no cause.