The Law of Cause and Effect.

[Polymath257]

(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.

First of all, in the 1920's and 1930's cosmology as a science was still very, very young. It wasn't until 1922-23 that Hubble was able to show that there were objects outside of our galaxy. The red-shifts for galaxies wasn't observed until 1924, and the connection between red-shifts and distance wasn't even conjectured until 1931. But even this was far from clear: only the closest galaxies had their distances measured and the uncertainties in those measurements were huge. As late as 1941, Hubble claimed that the red-shift evidence didn't support the expanding universe theory.

When the evidence is in such a state of flux, it is natural and even important that a wide variety of ideas be considered, debated, tested, and argued. Contrary to what you seem to think, the Steady State theory never had a huge following. Among other things, it demanded a continuous production of hydrogen out of nothing. That was a HUGE problem.

(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".

Yes, but Hoyle's ideas were not very widely accepted because they required spontaneous creation of hydrogen throughout the universe at a regular rate. That violation of the conservation of energy was seen as very problematic.

In the mean time, the BB formulation was gradually gaining evidence, and therefore respectability, while the Steady State theory was losing that same respectability. In particular, the discovery of quasars showed that the universe has fundamentally changed over time and the work of Gamow and others connected a hot-Big Bang to the abundances of the light elements.

In other words, the time period you are talking about is one where the available evidence was minimal and recognized by all sides to be such. A LOT of different alternatives were discussed and compared and more evidence was actively being sought out. But the Big Bang scenario was certainly considered seriously quite early on and LeMaitre's religion was not a barrier to the adoption of the ideas (except in a few cases), while the lack of evidence meant that no single viewpoint was clearly correct.

That, by the way, changed on the discovery of the background radiation, which was something the Steady State theory could not explain.

In other words, cosmology was doing exactly what any respectable science *should* do: it wa slooking at all the possibilities and comparing their predictions to the evidence while seeking out more evidence.

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.

We know of no such thing. For example, creative intelligence has *never* been able to change the basic laws of physics.

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

On the contrary, we know that *is* possible from a wide variety of models we have formulated.

 

[Skwim]

I can give several that say it is fundamentally probabilistic.

And we both know that's not the same.

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.

You seem to be making an odd qualification here with your "before." Do you stand by your first statement or not: "That isn't to say it happens for no reason." IOW: it does happen for a reason---it is caused. If you do, then exactly what is the significance of your "*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?

"Inherently" only in the sense that we don't know the cause of subatomic elements decaying when they do, so we're left with expressing it in probabilistic terms. Sure quantum mechanics expresses subatomic decay as probabilities, but so what? That isn't my challenge. My challenge has nothing to do with providing references stating that decay was expressed as probabilities, BUT in light of your statement that

"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.

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

meaning science says there is no underlying reason for the decay, I challenged you to

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

Your:

Is 5 references enough?

simply doesn't address that challenge. I believe I've already made it clear that I agree science addresses subatomic decay in terms of
probabilities. And it does so because so far it's the only thing it can do with it.

.

 

[Polymath257]

And we both know that's not the same.

Well, that is one of the reason I want a good working definition of the word 'cause'.

You seem to be making an odd qualification here with your "before." Do you stand by your first statement or not: "That isn't to say it happens for no reason." IOW: it does happen for a reason---it is caused. If you do, then exactly what is the significance of your "*when* and *how* it happens are not determined before the decay itself."?

OK, let's be clear. There is NO DIFFERENCE between the tauon that decays into a muon and the tauon that decays into a muon. Which decay actually happens is uncaused.

"Inherently" only in the sense that we don't know the cause of subatomic elements decaying when they do, so we're left with expressing it in probabilistic terms.

No, inherently as in 'inherently'.

Sure quantum mechanics expresses subatomic decay as probabilities, but so what? That isn't my challenge. My challenge has nothing to do with providing references stating that decay was expressed as probabilities, BUT in light of your statement that

"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.

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

meaning science says there is no underlying reason for the decay, I challenged you to

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

OK, will references that state that no hidden variable theory can agree with the experimentally observed results be enough? The *probabilities* are determined, but not the actual events. This is *basic* quantum mechanics.

Your:

Is 5 references enough?

simply doesn't address that challenge. I believe I've already made it clear that I agree science addresses subatomic decay in terms of
probabilities. And it does so because so far it's the only thing it can do with it.
.

And *why* is it the only thing it can do with it? Given the results of experiments into Bell's inequalities, hidden variable theories are disallowed: no theory involving 'smaller parts' that are local properties with definite values can possibly be in agreement with the observations. The universe really is probabilistic inherently.

Do you want me to give references to the experiments that show the real universe doesn't obey Bell's inequalities? And what that means about causality?

More importantly, because the tauon, for example, is a fundamental particle, and because there is NO difference between the tauons that decay in different ways, the causality is at best questionable.

So, for example, is saying that 'tauons decay because they are massive weakly interacting particles and that their mass and the masses of the lighter leptons and quarks determines the decay rate' enough to say that the decays are caused? Well, if you see a cause as leading to one and only one effect, then no. If, instead, you allow for a probabilistic version of causality, then yes.

 

[omega2xx]

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).

The button is not the cause. What it is attached to is the cause. What man has invented with his mind is greater than the explosion.

 

[gnostic]

you can't throw cause and effect out the window, why would anyone consider it non reality?

Because some claims to "cause-and-effect" are imaginary and unrealistic, like Cosmic Consciousness, Intelligent Design (ID) and Young Earth Creationism (YEC).

The claims for CAUSE, are often made without evidences to show that the CAUSE actually exist. For instance, the claims that God (or gods), Creator or Designer being the CAUSE, but there are no physical evidences to show that God, Creator or Designer existing.

The claims are made through conjectures and assertions that are made through a priori (flawed deductive reasoning), biased belief and blind faith, and without substances (no verifiable evidences).

The person making his or her claim, is usually just projecting his or her belief, which is usually biased and motivated by his or her religious agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

The button is not the cause. What it is attached to is the cause. What man has invented with his mind is greater than the explosion.

The electrical current initiated by the button causes the explosion. Still waiting for something substantial as references concerning your assertions, As usual you do not back up or support your assertions. it is also well known that static electricity can set off explosions flammable substances, even in natural situations without any human involvement,

 

[Polymath257]

The button is not the cause. What it is attached to is the cause. What man has invented with his mind is greater than the explosion.

I think most people would consider the press of the button to be the cause. For example, if a mouse runs over the button to set off the explosion, we wouldn't consider the designer of the system to be the cause of the explosion.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

First of all, in the 1920's and 1930's cosmology as a science was still very, very young. It wasn't until 1922-23 that Hubble was able to show that there were objects outside of our galaxy. The red-shifts for galaxies wasn't observed until 1924, and the connection between red-shifts and distance wasn't even conjectured until 1931. But even this was far from clear: only the closest galaxies had their distances measured and the uncertainties in those measurements were huge. As late as 1941, Hubble claimed that the red-shift evidence didn't support the expanding universe theory.

When the evidence is in such a state of flux, it is natural and even important that a wide variety of ideas be considered, debated, tested, and argued. Contrary to what you seem to think, the Steady State theory never had a huge following. Among other things, it demanded a continuous production of hydrogen out of nothing. That was a HUGE problem.



Yes, but Hoyle's ideas were not very widely accepted because they required spontaneous creation of hydrogen throughout the universe at a regular rate. That violation of the conservation of energy was seen as very problematic.

In the mean time, the BB formulation was gradually gaining evidence, and therefore respectability, while the Steady State theory was losing that same respectability. In particular, the discovery of quasars showed that the universe has fundamentally changed over time and the work of Gamow and others connected a hot-Big Bang to the abundances of the light elements.

In other words, the time period you are talking about is one where the available evidence was minimal and recognized by all sides to be such. A LOT of different alternatives were discussed and compared and more evidence was actively being sought out. But the Big Bang scenario was certainly considered seriously quite early on and LeMaitre's religion was not a barrier to the adoption of the ideas (except in a few cases), while the lack of evidence meant that no single viewpoint was clearly correct.

That, by the way, changed on the discovery of the background radiation, which was something the Steady State theory could not explain.

In other words, cosmology was doing exactly what any respectable science *should* do: it wa slooking at all the possibilities and comparing their predictions to the evidence while seeking out more evidence.



We know of no such thing. For example, creative intelligence has *never* been able to change the basic laws of physics.



On the contrary, we know that *is* possible from a wide variety of models we have formulated.

Thanks for the detailed response,

I have no problem with science here, it did what it was supposed to do, eventually, when Lemaitre was on his death bed, never receiving a Nobel prize for arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time..

The barrier to progress here was not science, but atheism, Hoyle and many others openly mocked and rejected the primeval atom as 'pseudoscience' and 'big bang' explicitly because of what they complained of as the overt theistic implications of such a creation event. I know Wikipedia isn't the end all of knowledge, but they are hardly biased towards theists!

If you think it had nothing to do with ideological implications, you would have had to have argued your assertion with atheist cosmologists at the time, they openly admitted it.

Lemaitre in stark contrast did what a scientist is supposed to do, go out of his way to distance his theory from his own beliefs- even writing to the Pope to tell him to knock it off with the gloating!

Hoyle never accepted the evidence to his dying day, it's hard to change your mind to believe in something you already mocked, no matter the evidence. And that's the ultimate problem with atheism- it's very difficult for a person to remove themselves from a belief they don't even acknowledge as such.

 

[omega2xx]

Because some claims to "cause-and-effect" are imaginary and unrealistic, like Cosmic Consciousness, Intelligent Design (ID) and Young Earth Creationism (YEC).

Name on thing that does not have a cause except God. The things you just mentioned can't be labeled imaginary or unrealistic until you have all of the info needed to make such a statement and you don't. There is more evidence for a Creator what is an intelligent Designer, that there is that His is not real.

The claims for CAUSE, are often made without evidences to show that the CAUSE actually exist. For instance, the claims that God (or gods), Creator or Designer being the CAUSE, but there are no physical evidences to show that God, Creator or Designer existing.

Unless you can prove how a universe with all of its matter, energy and life came into being , you are the one with no evidence. I have the universe to point to and logic is also on my side.

The claims are made through conjectures and assertions that are made through a priori (flawed deductive reasoning), biased belief and blind faith, and without substances (no verifiable evidences).

You have the same problems trying to deny the existence of God, and you are not qualified to make the final decision on what is "flawed deductive reasoning."

The person making his or her claim, is usually just projecting his or her belief, which is usually biased and motivated by his or her religious agenda.

A good example of you flawed deductive reasoning. Accepting that a creation needs a creator is more logical than your denial with no a priori evidence evidence. Your OPINION that matter, life and energy is eternal also has no a priori evidence.

You accept evolution as having been scientifically proven. Another area where there is not only no a priori evidence, some of the guesses of the TOE are actually refuted by real science/

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Natural Laws do not translate to 'purely blind processes.'

We agree again.

'Nature is the executor of God's laws' Galileo

Claims of Intelligent Design are not supported by science,

are too!

but flying spaghetti multiverses get a waiver on that technicality!

 

[omega2xx]

The electrical current initiated by the button causes the explosion.

It is not the electricity. It is the mind of man who invented such a device that is the cause.

Still waiting for something substantial as references concerning your assertions, As usual you do not back up or support your assertions. it is also well known that static electricity can set off explosions flammable substances, even in natural situations without any human involvement,

I have noticed that most people, including you, rarely give the evidence to support their opinions. If you will be specific, I will answer whateverI you mention.

 

[omega2xx]

I think most people would consider the press of the button to be the cause. For example, if a mouse runs over the button to set off the explosion, we wouldn't consider the designer of the system to be the cause of the explosion.

If an intelligent man/woman did not think of and have the device made, the button would not do anything.

 

[gnostic]

I have no problem with science here, it did what it was supposed to do, eventually, when Lemaitre was on his death bed, never receiving a Nobel prize for arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time.

Hoyle is just one atheist, and not even a great astrophysicist.

I can name five atheists who support the Big Bang model before Hoyle came up with his own cosmological model - the Steady State model, and each one of them are great astrophysicists in their own rights.

And Lemaître didn't contribute to the expanding universe model alone, nor was he the first to come up with the idea.

The Russian physicist, Alexander Friedmann came up with the idea 5 years earlier than Lemaître. And Friedmann too didn't get Nobel prize.

Two years after Lemaître published his hypothesis, Edwin Hubble, who discovered the first evidence for expanding universe, with red-shift.

George Gamow (another Russian), 2 Americans, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, have all 3 (as a team) made very huge contributions to the Big Bang model in 1948, and none of them the prizes. Their contributions actually went further and beyond Lemaître's Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom.

None of these 5 astrophysicists, who happened to be atheists, ever supported Hoyle's model, but did support the expanding universe model (later to be known as the Big Bang model). (Actually, four astrophysicists, because Friedmann died in 1925, nearly 30 years before Hoyle's model).

To say atheists are against Lemaître's theory is to ignore those atheists who did contribute to his theory. Friedmann, Hubble, Gamow, Alpher and Herman, were respectively astrophysicists and astronomers, and all 5 are atheists.

 

[shunyadragon]

simply doesn't address that challenge. I believe I've already made it clear that I agree science addresses subatomic decay in terms of
probabilities. And it does so because so far it's the only thing it can do with it.

.

It is abundantly clear you have not responded to my challenges. I do believe that talking about the cause of decay of particles and the probability of how they decay gets messy as to cause the cause. I propose the underlying Laws of Nature determine the nature and behavior of the particles.

My challenge is clear and specific, the underlying Natural Laws and the nature of our physical existence including the relationship of energy and matter have no known cause, and we likely will never determine the cause or causes.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is not the electricity. It is the mind of man who invented such a device that is the cause.

The case of static electricity causes an explosion of flammable materials has no human cause.

I have noticed that most people, including you, rarely give the evidence to support their opinions. If you will be specific, I will answer whatever you mention.

I was specific in this thread and I have been specific in previous threads.

I have repeatedly responded with academic references and you have failed to respond. For example the problem of the delta of the Colorado River. I gave a detailed reference describing the formation of the deltas involved. You failed to acknowledge nor respond.

Again . . .

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, and not "Yeas ago, and I can't find it now,"

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.

 

[Skwim]

Well, that is one of the reason I want a good working definition of the word 'cause'.

How about:

The action, phenomenon, or condition that gives rise to another action, phenomenon, or condition.​

OK, will references that state that no hidden variable theory can agree with the experimentally observed results be enough?

No! I'm looking for your citation of two reputable science sources that say subatomic decay occurs for absolutely no reason whatsoever. And in as much as you've been unable to do so---and in effect back up your assertion---but are determined to address other issues I think I'm done with this discussion.

Have a good day.

.

 

[Skwim]

It is abundantly clear you have not responded to my challenges.

Just to be clear, I don't read everyone's posts, so I guess I missed your challenge. And even your "challenge" here fails to qualify as such

"My challenge is clear and specific, the underlying Natural Laws and the nature of our physical existence including the relationship of energy and matter have no known cause, and we likely will never determine the cause or causes"​

This is a statement, not a challenge, and all I can say is, if that's what you believe then that's what you believe.

.

 

[gnostic]

Name on thing that does not have a cause except God. The things you just mentioned can't be labeled imaginary or unrealistic until you have all of the info needed to make such a statement and you don't. There is more evidence for a Creator what is an intelligent Designer, that there is that His is not real.

Then please present some evidences, and not just your declaration of your faith.

Your faith and your claim for your creator deity is merely a projection of your belief, which are in no way "evidence", nor impartial.

I go by evidences, not belief. And I have known you for 8 months now, and in that time, you have never presented any evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

How about:

The action, phenomenon, or condition that gives rise to another action, phenomenon, or condition.​

Is uniqueness required either direction? So, given a cause, is the effect determined? Or is a probabilistic relationship OK for causality?

No! I'm looking for your citation of two reputable science sources that say subatomic decay occurs for absolutely no reason whatsoever. And in as much as you've been unable to do so---and in effect back up your assertion---but are determined to address other issues I think I'm done with this discussion.

Have a good day.

.

What do you mean 'for no reason whatsoever'? I *gave* reasons for the decay. What there is no reason for is the *specifics* of the decay. The 'reason' for the decay is that the tauon is more massive than the muon and electron and is subject to the weak nuclear force.

Now, what I claim is that there is no reason that a specific tauon decays into a muon rather than an electron (or any of the multiple possible decay modes). The tauon will eventually decay. But *how* it decays (into what, in other words) and *when* it decays are not determined in any way.

 

[DavidFirth]

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 when we try and deal with cause and effect in the Quantum world,

I believe it considering we don't know enough about the quantum world to even attempt to explain cause or effect.

Actually, cause and effect doesn't work with the Almighty God. He makes the rules according to His will. Cause and effect is something some scientist dreamt up.