The Law of Cause and Effect.

[Curious George]

Depends on what you mean. In the case of radioactive decay, there are many situations where the decay is a *cause* of later events, even though the decay itself is not caused. So, we detect the effects of the decay.

This is one way that we can have an 'uncaused cause' with no religious implications.

What i mean is how can we detect the initial amount of tritium, that a change occurred, etc. How can you detect an electron without invoking cause and effect? You seem to be under the impression that science needn't or doesn't invoke cause and effect. I disagree. It is an assumption that is required for experimentation, which you must rely in order to make any reputable scientific claims.

 

[Curious George]

We detect the effects, and and develop the descriptive science of Quantum Mechanics based on predictability and probability of the observations. The only causal relationship is that there are underlying laws of nature. that determines the outcome.

what exactly are the "effects" and how do we detect them?

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, causality in classical physics is fairly straightforward and does agree with the intuitions. In this setting, we can say one event 'causes' another if the laws of nature, taking the first as an initial condition, inevitably lead to the second at a later time. So, event A causing event B requires both the action of a natural law and an interval of time.

Causality in classical physics on the macro level is not the issue here.

We cannot always describe one event 'causes' another particularly in the fundamental observation of the basic particles of matter in the descriptive science of Quantum Mechanics.

In quantum mechanics, the laws of nature do NOT determine the subsequent development of most systems. So even if the initial conditions are perfectly understood, there is no way, even in theory, to predict the subsequent events.[/QUOTE]

Disagree. It depends what you consider predictable. Science is descriptive of the pattern and probability of the events in Quantum Mechanics, and not the predictability of individual events.

 

[shunyadragon]

What i mean is how can we detect the initial amount of tritium, that a change occurred, etc. How can you detect an electron without invoking cause and effect? You seem to be under the impression that science needn't or doesn't invoke cause and effect. I disagree. It is an assumption that is required for experimentation, which you must rely in order to make any reputable scientific claims.

You can detect and photograph an electron by freezing it to a temperature near absolute zero.

Discussions of the nature and amount of the element of Tritium requires simply one atom of Tritium for a charge to occur. The charge of the atom of Tritium would be caused by the underlying behavior of the basic Quantum particles that make up the atomic particles of the Tritium atom. The behavior of the basic particles of the Tritium atom would be determined by the Laws of Nature.

 

[Curious George]

You can detect and photograph an electron by freezing it to a temperature near absolute zero.

Discussions of the nature and amount of the element of Tritium requires simply one atom of Tritium for a charge to occur. The charge of the atom of Tritium would be caused by the underlying behavior of the basic Quantum particles that make up the Tritium atom. The behavior of the basic particles of the Tritium atom would be determined by the Laws of Nature.

And how does a photograph work without invoking cause and effect? What do you mean by the "laws of nature?" How can you be certain you had any tritium?

 

[Polymath257]

What i mean is how can we detect the initial amount of tritium, that a change occurred, etc. How can you detect an electron without invoking cause and effect? You seem to be under the impression that science needn't or doesn't invoke cause and effect. I disagree. It is an assumption that is required for experimentation, which you must rely in order to make any reputable scientific claims.

Not at all what I claim. I am not saying that cause and effect are completely absent. In fact, to a large extent, what we call cause and effect is due to statistical effects from having Avogadro's number of atoms around. The averages are *very* well determined in such situations.

But, we know of many situations that are not 'caused'. Such events can then be causes of other events, especially in the sense above. So, for example, an individual nuclear decay is not a caused event. But having a macroscopic sample of a radioactive material provides enough decays to allow causal connections. We use such in many fields, from medicine, to fossil dating, etc.

But what we have found is that while we can predict the *probabilities* of quantum events, we cannot predict the specifics of any given event and our description goes as far as to say such prediction is impossible.

So, for example, when an electron is emitted from a beta decay (like for tritium), that electron interacts with a fairly large number of surrounding atoms. The resulting current is large enough and predictable enough to say it is caused by the passing of that electron. But, for example, the *direction* of the electron cannot be predicted ahead of time.

 

[Skwim]

The science says otherwise.

Then show us this "otherwise."

On what do you base your view?

On what has been said about such decay events; that we only know their probability. And be that as it may, this certainly does not preclude their being caused, as so many have misinterpreted their randomness. There is no more reason to think they are truly random than to think the result of a rolled pair of dice is truly random.

And your belief that there is a cause doesn't mean there is.

Of course not, but lacking any such statements to the contrary such as " radioactive decay events are truly uncaused," there's no reason to believe they are.

In fact, the best description we have, quantum mechanics, has no 'cause' for the timing of a decay.

Then show us you evidence. Show us two reputable sources that have said radioactive decay has no cause.

ALL it has is a probability of decay in a given time period.

Because that's all we presently know about its decay, its probability of decaying at any time X. As I said, just because we don't know the cause doesn't mean there isn't any.

I was pointing out that *you* had a quote from a different source.

If you're talking about the following

"Suggestions that quantum events occur in an indeterministic, or uncaused, manner are based on ignorance of their causes. One cannot precisely predict the rate of decay of a single radioactive isotope, and this has led some to wrongly conclude that radioactive decay is therefore random in the strong sense of having no cause. Similarly flawed conclusions included assertions that the inability to simultaneously measure the position
and momentum of a particle as prohibited by HUP means that such particle behavior is uncaused, and that ignorance of aspects of particle behavior in the double-slit experiment and in entanglement means that the behavior is uncaused. While the causal mechanisms of the above phenomena are, and may forever remain, unknown, this ignorance does not justify a conclusion that they are uncaused."
source
​

it's on page 9

.

 

[Curious George]

Not at all what I claim.

One of the more common arguments I have seen is an argument from 'cause and effect'.

Now, it is interesting that there is a claim that this is the foundation of science even though in taking up to PhD level physics courses, this 'law' is never invoked or even mentioned. It certainly is never explicitly stated.

So, what is the 'law of cause and effect'?

What does it mean to be a 'cause'?

What does it mean to be an 'effect'?

Yes, I have looked at dictionary definitions, but they are all lacking in describing exactly what the connection is supposed to be between 'causes' and 'effects'.

I am not saying that cause and effect are completely absent. In fact, to a large extent, what we call cause and effect is due to statistical effects from having Avogadro's number of atoms around. The averages are *very* well determined in such situations.

But, we know of many situations that are not 'caused'. Such events can then be causes of other events, especially in the sense above. So, for example, an individual nuclear decay is not a caused event. But having a macroscopic sample of a radioactive material provides enough decays to allow causal connections. We use such in many fields, from medicine, to fossil dating, etc.

But what we have found is that while we can predict the *probabilities* of quantum events, we cannot predict the specifics of any given event and our description goes as far as to say such prediction is impossible.

So, for example, when an electron is emitted from a beta decay (like for tritium), that electron interacts with a fairly large number of surrounding atoms. The resulting current is large enough and predictable enough to say it is caused by the passing of that electron. But, for example, the *direction* of the electron cannot be predicted ahead of time.

Now you are invoking cause and effect, in science nonetheless.

Cheers.

 

[Curious George]

Cause and effect is an inescapable assumption on which we rely. It is no different than freewill in this respect. Assertions that we needn't or do not invoke these two aspects, whether they be illusions or not, are faulty. This is because these assumptions are inextricably entwined with our fundamental understanding of percieved reality.

 

[Polymath257]

Now you are invoking cause and effect, in science nonetheless.

Cheers.

Yes, and I gave a definition of causality as I am using it. I am also claiming some events are not caused.

 

[Curious George]

Yes, and I gave a definition of causality as I am using it. I am also claiming some events are not caused.

So you would agree that cause and effect is invoked by all science necessarily?

 

[Polymath257]

Then show us this "otherwise."

The science says that all we can ever hope for is to predict probabilities. That is essential in the formulation in terms of a probability wave function.

On what has been said about such decay events; that we only know their probability. And be that as it may, this certainly does not preclude their being caused, as so many have misinterpreted their randomness. There is no more reason to think they are truly random than to think the result of a rolled pair of dice is truly random.

On the contrary, we have much, much more reason to think that quantum events are random in a way that rolled dice are not.

Of course not, but lacking any such statements to the contrary such as " radioactive decay events are truly uncaused," there's no reason to believe they are.

Given that we know that some events in quantum mechanics are uncaused (Bell's theorem and observations show this) and given that there isn't a fundamental difference in how radioactive decay is treated in QM, there is every reason to believe they are uncaused.

Then show us you evidence. Show us two reputable sources that have said radioactive decay has no cause.

Give a precise definition of 'caused' that I can use to do this.

Because that's all we presently know about its decay, its probability of decaying at any time X. As I said, just because we don't know the cause doesn't mean there isn't any.

That alone is not enough, that is true. But the fact that no hidden variable theory can be consistent with QM *is* good reason.

 

[Polymath257]

So you would agree that cause and effect is invoked by all science necessarily?

No. In fact, all that is required is that there be correlation (not causality) that is enough to give detection.

 

[Skwim]

The science says that all we can ever hope for is to predict probabilities. That is essential in the formulation in terms of a probability wave function.

On the contrary, we have much, much more reason to think that quantum events are random in a way that rolled dice are not.

Given that we know that some events in quantum mechanics are uncaused (Bell's theorem and observations show this) and given that there isn't a fundamental difference in how radioactive decay is treated in QM, there is every reason to believe they are uncaused.

Give a precise definition of 'caused' that I can use to do this.

That alone is not enough, that is true. But the fact that no hidden variable theory can be consistent with QM *is* good reason.

This tap dancing is no longer worth my time.

Have a good day.

.

 

[Curious George]

No. In fact, all that is required is that there be correlation (not causality) that is enough to give detection.

Incorrect. There even this correlation must rest upon the assumption of cause and effect. If you think you have some alternative method, break it down. Hopefully you will see. But ultimately all science is founded upon the notion of cause and effect.

 

[shunyadragon]

And how does a photograph work without invoking cause and effect?

Science and the observations the scientists make are descriptive and causal. Scientist simply create the conditions where the electron may be observed and photographed.

What do you mean by the "laws of nature?"

Simply the Laws that under lie the nature of our existence that determine how things work in our physical existence that includes our universe.

How can you be certain you had any tritium?

The properties of the Tritium element are unique to Tritium and measurable.

 

[Curious George]

Science and the observations the scientists make are descriptive and causal.

Thus invoking cause and effect. I guess cause and effect did not "go out with Newtonian physics."

Scientist simply create the conditions where the electron may be observed and photographed.

That is only possible with cause and effect.

Simply the Laws that under lie the nature of our existence that determine how things work in our physical existence that includes our universe.

Lol, like cause and effect?

The properties of the Tritium element are unique to Tritium and measurable.

An assumption only possible with cause and effect.

Cheers

 

[Curious George]

The science says that all we can ever hope for is to predict probabilities. That is essential in the formulation in terms of a probability wave function.

That was begging the question

On the contrary, we have much, much more reason to think that quantum events are random in a way that rolled dice are not.



Given that we know that some events in quantum mechanics are uncaused (Bell's theorem and observations show this) and given that there isn't a fundamental difference in how radioactive decay is treated in QM, there is every reason to believe they are uncaused.

That is a non sequitur

Give a precise definition of 'caused' that I can use to do this.



That alone is not enough, that is true. But the fact that no hidden variable theory can be consistent with QM *is* good reason.

 

[shunyadragon]

Incorrect. There even this correlation must rest upon the assumption of cause and effect. If you think you have some alternative method, break it down. Hopefully you will see. But ultimately all science is founded upon the notion of cause and effect.

Only when science can link a specific cause to an effect as in the macro world of classical physics. Ultimately science is descriptive discipline like math, and when the world science works with gets smaller and smaller, at the Quantum level the limit of observing 'cause' ends when measuring things in terms of Quanta of mass, energy, and speed.

From: Photons as light quanta
For example:
Photons as light quanta

A photon is a quanta of light. Our picture of light, to this point, has been that of a wave. Wave-like characteristics are responsible for diffraction and refraction. However, light is absorbed and emitted one photon at a time. The energy in a photon is related to the frequency of the light wave through Planck's constant.

Photons are massless particles. The idea of massless particles may seem a bit strange. To understand them better, we consider the expressions for energy and momentum of particles of mass m.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thus invoking cause and effect.

No

[/quote]
I guess cause and effect did not "go out with Newtonian physics." [/quote]

True, for the most part classical physics is defined by cause and effect in the macro world.

That is only possible with cause and effect.

No. Laws of Nature determines this, science is only descriptive, and your assertions do not determine the nature of cause and effect in the natural world.

It is a bit too simplistic, but from the layman;s perspective you may consider the Laws of Nature as the ultimate cause where the 'Buck stops here.'

An assumption only possible with cause and effect.

Only with the layman's view of determinism that the ultimate cause are the Laws of Nature.