The Law of Cause and Effect.

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That is ok, but anal grammarians are like finger nails on the black board, I do not believe 'because' always implies causation.

"because - informal; used to introduce a word or phrase that stands for a clause expressing an explanation or reason."

Did I offend you?

Sorry. I was just trying to be helpful.

 

[joe1776]

Proximate cause may be the term you're looking for:

• "A proximate cause is an event which is closest to, or immediately responsible for causing, some observed result. This exists in contrast to a higher-level ultimate cause (or distal cause) which is usually thought of as the "real" reason something occurred." Proximate and ultimate causation - Wikipedia

That's right. Proximate cause is the legal term for the same cause I had in mind but the Law is only concerned with placing blame. We are usually concerned with changing the cause-and-effect chain to avoid repeating mistakes.

 

[shunyadragon]

Did I offend you?

Sorry. I was just trying to be helpful.

No problem.

 

[Skwim]

I already did:

Problem; E=mC2 is the relationship between matter and energy. There is no known cause for matter nor energy, nor the cause of this relationship, because it simply exists.

Theists propose the cause is Creation, but this a Theistic assumption without objective verifiable evidence.

It gets worse, as previously described, when we try and deal with cause and effect in the Quantum world,

Ah, So your question goes back to, whence the Big Bang? I kind of figured we had gone past that and were talking about more contemporary causes and effects, however, in as much as you've brought up the quantum world, aside from BB issues, got an example of an uncaused relationship in today's quantum world?

.

 

[omega2xx]

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'.

Yeas ago, and I can't find it now, I read that the law of cause and effect says the effect can't be greater than its cause. IOW since life is greater than death, dead elements can't' e the cause of life.

 

[Polymath257]

Ah, So your question goes back to, whence the Big Bang? I kind of figured we had gone past that and were talking about more contemporary causes and effects, however, in as much as you've brought up the quantum world, aside from BB issues, got an example of an uncaused relationship in today's quantum world?
.

Well, this is part of why I was asking what the word 'cause' means.

Classically, a cause would produce a *unique* effect and would always produce exactly that effect (unless there is an outside intervention).

However, in the quantum world, *most* events are probabilistic. It is actually rather rare for an initial condition to *guarantee* a given result. Instead, the different possible outcomes are only determined up to some probability. Furthermore, it is quite common that the timing of a subsequent event is not determined.

So, for example, a muon will spontaneously decay into an electron and a couple of neutrinos (actually, an electron anti-neutrino and a muon neutrino). But, if you look at 10 muons, there is no way to tell when any given one will decay. There is *nothing* different about the muons that decay now and those that decay three half-lives from now.

So, in what sense is the decay of the muon 'caused'?

Or, in another case, the tauon can decay into a muon and a couple of neutrinos OR a muon, a couple of neutrinos and a photon OR an electron and a couple of neutrinos, etc (there are several different decay modes). Each of these types of decay happens with a certain probability, but it is impossible to determine which way any given tauon will decay. There is *nothing* different between the tauon that decays into amuon and a couple of neutrinos and the tauon that decays into the electron and a couple of neutrinos. Furthermore, the timing of these decays is probabilistic (just as with the muon above).

So, in what sense can we say that the decay products are 'caused' by the original tauon? or that the tauon decay is 'caused'?

 

[Polymath257]

Yeas ago, and I can't find it now, I read that the law of cause and effect says the effect can't be greater than its cause. IOW since life is greater than death, dead elements can't' e the cause of life.

That is clearly false. For example, it is easy enough to rig up a push button to an explosive so that the effect (a huge explosion) is much, much greater than the cause (the push of a button).

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And, once again, semantics rules the day.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ah, So your question goes back to, whence the Big Bang? I kind of figured we had gone past that and were talking about more contemporary causes and effects, however, in as much as you've brought up the quantum world, aside from BB issues, got an example of an uncaused relationship in today's quantum world?

.

Actually, I am not going back to the Big Bang, and it depends on which version of the theory you propose, the event? cannot be necessarily be described as the beginning of everything, nor a cause in and of itself, Possible events such as the beginning? of our universe from the scientific perspective are descriptive only.

The observed properties of the basic particles of matter and the energy relationships have no known cause. Science can only describe the nature of these basic particles of matter and not what caused them.

Again, science can only describe the relationship between energy and matter (E=mc2), and not what caused this relationship.

At the very basic levels of Natural Laws and Physics it remains that science is descriptive only.

 

[shunyadragon]

And, once again, semantics rules the day.

A nice wet eraser can take care of any semantic issues on the blackboard.

 

[Skwim]

Well, this is part of why I was asking what the word 'cause' means.

Classically, a cause would produce a *unique* effect and would always produce exactly that effect (unless there is an outside intervention).

I wouldn't say unique because that implies no other cause is capable of producing the same effect. Put as simply as I can, while 2 + 3 = 5, but so does 4 + 1.

However, in the quantum world, *most* events are probabilistic.

The probability only arises because of our lack of understanding the underling nature of the cause and our inability to determine its moment of action.

It is actually rather rare for an initial condition to *guarantee* a given result. Instead, the different possible outcomes are only determined up to some probability. Furthermore, it is quite common that the timing of a subsequent event is not determined.

All of which is a matter of foreknowledge as to the nature of the cause. The less we know the less probable will be our ability to predict an event.

So, for example, a muon will spontaneously decay into an electron and a couple of neutrinos (actually, an electron anti-neutrino and a muon neutrino). But, if you look at 10 muons, there is no way to tell when any given one will decay. There is *nothing* different about the muons that decay now and those that decay three half-lives from now.

The term "spontaneously" is really a fudge word. It indicates our lack of sufficient knowledge of a cause and therefore our inability say when it acts. That this is so does not mean its actuation is undetermined: there is no reason for it.
So, lacking such knowledge, we're left with probabilities. As per your example of muon decay, we can only say it will decay into an electron probably at time X. This is no different than not knowing all the factors that determine when a person arrives for an event. Lacking knowledge of such factors we can only cite probabilities as to when he arrives: However, this doesn't mean there are no determining factors (causes) that govern when he arrives; just as it doesn't mean there are no determining causes that govern when a muon decays. A muon will decay at time X rather than at some other time because . . . . And it's this "..cause" that functions as the determinant.



.

 

[Polymath257]

I wouldn't say unique because that implies no other cause is capable of producing the same effect. Put as simply as I can, while 2 + 3 = 5, but so does 4 + 1.

No, the direction I was talking baout ammounts to saying that 3+4=7 and not 3+7=8. Given the cause, the effect is determined uniquely.

The probability only arises because of our lack of understanding the underling nature of the cause and our inability to determine its moment of action.

The problem is that you *claim* there is an underlying reason, while the best description of these phenomena *by far* simply says that *only* the probabilities can be found. Furthermore, it is known that it is impossible to have a local, realist description (a hidden variable theory) that actually agrees with experiments.

In other words, your claim that there is an underlying reason is completely unsupported, especially by the science.

All of which is a matter of foreknowledge as to the nature of the cause. The less we know the less probable will be our ability to predict an event.

On the contrary, instead of being a matter of us not knowing the underlying reasons, the best evidence is that there *is* no underlying reason: the results really are probabilistic.

The term "spontaneously" is really a fudge word. It indicates our lack of sufficient knowledge of a cause and therefore our inability say when it acts. That this is so does not mean its actuation is undetermined: there is nor reason it.

On the contrary, this is precisely what the available evidence shows. There is NO DIFFERENCE between a muon that decays now versus one that decays three half-lives from now. There is NO DIFFERENCE between the tauon that decays into a muon and the one that decays into an electron. Furthermore, this way of looking at how the subatomic world works has been verified over and over again in the last century.

So, lacking such knowledge, we're left with probabilities. As per your example of muon decay, we can only say it will probably decay into an electron at time X. This is no different than not knowing all the factors that determine when a person arrives for an event. Lacking knowledge of such factors we can only cite probabilities as to when he arrives: However, this doesn't mean there are no determining factors (causes) that govern when he arrives; just as it doesn't mean there are no determining causes that govern when a tauon decays. A tauon will decay at time X rather than at some other time because . . . . .And it's this "..cause" that functions as the determinant.
.

This is a claim that you can make, but it isn't upheld by the available evidence. In fact, the violation of Bell's inequalities (and many other results) show that such hidden variable descriptions are impossible.

The probabilities of quantum mechanics really are substantially different than the probabilities of, say, throwing dice. In the latter, if you knew everything about the dice, you could actually calculate the outcome of a throw. In quantum mechanics, ALL you get are probabilities. And that is an fundamental aspect of how the universe works.

 

[Skwim]

The problem is that you *claim* there is an underlying reason, while the best description of these phenomena *by far* simply says that *only* the probabilities can be found. Furthermore, it is known that it is impossible to have a local, realist description (a hidden variable theory) that actually agrees with experiments.

In other words, your claim that there is an underlying reason is completely unsupported, especially by the science.

Then cite two reputable science sources that say subatomic decay occurs for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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'.

That's why atheist cosmologists long preferred static, eternal, cyclical models of some kind: no creation = no creator. The universe 'just is' and we don't need to question how or why or the implications of that..., and I see that rationale posted here also.

But the skeptical position against atheism is not just that an effect (our universe) required a cause, but that creation requires creativity- the only phenomena that is not bound to an endless regression of 'natural', blind, automated, cause and effect with no truly creative capacity.

 

[Polymath257]

Then cite two reputable science sources that say subatomic decay occurs for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
.

I can give several that say it is fundamentally probabilistic. That isn't to say it happens for no reason. It means that *when* and *how* it happens are not determined before the decay itself.

Most textbooks don't belabor this point, but simply go directly to calculating the relevant probabilities.

The *reason* for the decay is that it is a weakly interacting lepton with a mass more than that of the least massive lepton (the electron).

So, do you need a reference to say that quantum mechanics is inherently probabilistic? OK,

Is 5 references enough?

These give the quantum mechanical interpretation of the 'state' in terms of probabilities:
Quantum Mechanics, by Bransden&Joachain, section 2.2.
The Quantum Theory of Fields, by Weinberg, section 2.1
Quantum Physics, by Eisberg&Resnick, section 5-3.

For specifically nuclear decay, consider the following (which shows how to compute the probabilities from the quantum wave functions):
Quantum Physics, by Eisberg&Resnick, section 16-3 (for beta decay--which is relevant to the tauon)

For other particle decays, look at
Quantum Field Theory, by Peskin&Schroeder, sections 4.5 and 4.6 (where details are given from first principles on how to calculate the probabilities of decay).

Do you want to claim any of these are not reputable?

 

[Polymath257]

That's why atheist cosmologists long preferred static, eternal, cyclical models of some kind: no creation = no creator. The universe 'just is' and we don't need to question how or why or the implications of that..., and I see that rationale posted here also.

But the skeptical position against atheism is not just that an effect (our universe) required a cause, but that creation requires creativity- the only phenomena that is not bound to an endless regression of 'natural', blind, automated, cause and effect with no truly creative capacity.

Can you justify either of these claims?

 

[ChristineM]

Yeas ago, and I can't find it now, I read that the law of cause and effect says the effect can't be greater than its cause. IOW since life is greater than death, dead elements can't' e the cause of life.

Who says life is greater than death?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Can you justify either of these claims?

(Wiki)

In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[45] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.

(Hoyle) found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms".


The 2nd is more of an argument than a claim.. but we know that creative intelligence can produce genuinely novel information systems like those necessary to underwrite physics etc.
Whether or not purely blind processes can achieve the same... far less be a more probable explanation... it's an interesting proposition but remains philosophical speculation at best

 

[shunyadragon]

↑
Yeas ago, and I can't find it now, I read that the law of cause and effect says the effect can't be greater than its cause. IOW since life is greater than death, dead elements can't' e the cause of life.

Once upon a time . . . Sounds kind of the stuff of myth and legend.

Need coherent references,

Actually there is no law of cause and effect. You may be referring to the related Laws of the Conservation of Energy and Matter, or maybe the Laws of Thermodynamics.

 

[shunyadragon]

(Wiki)

In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[45] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.

(Hoyle) found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms".


The 2nd is more of an argument than a claim.. but we know that creative intelligence can produce genuinely novel information systems like those necessary to underwrite physics etc.
Whether or not purely blind processes can achieve the same... far less be a more probable explanation... it's an interesting proposition but remains philosophical speculation at best

Natural Laws do not translate to 'purely blind processes.' Claims of Intelligent Design are not supported by science,