Refutation of the First Cause argument

[Tomk80]

I would like to see a scientist say there definitely is no cause, not "we can't find a cause so there isn't a cause" or "it's too difficult to find a cause so in practical terms there isn't a cause". I don't think this is an accurate reflection of what scientists are saying.

Talk to some quantum physicists (I thought Jet Black was one, but I'm not sure anymore). All of the ones I talked to say exactly that.

You'll agree I think that well over 99.9% of all other science is predicated on cause/effect. And I think you'll agree even (regardless if you believe these things don't have a cause) that the scientists only did their job right if they looked for a cause. Now why would you agree to that if the assumption that cause/effect exists is a poor one?

Because now you are talking about the macro world, where cause and effect do occur. However, that is not the conclusion we can draw when looking at the quantum world, which seems to be governed by it's own rules entirely.

 

[Jet Black]

I would like to see a scientist say there definitely is no cause, not "we can't find a cause so there isn't a cause" or "it's too difficult to find a cause so in practical terms there isn't a cause". I don't think this is an accurate reflection of what scientists are saying.

no, your suggestions are not an accurate reflection of what scientists are saying. Scientists do actually say those events are uncaused - not because they can't find a cause or the experiments aren't good enough, but because these events are theoretically and empirically causeless. It falls out of the maths that they are uncaused and it falls out in the experiment too, because the experiments agree with the maths every time.

You'll agree I think that well over 99.9% of all other science is predicated on cause/effect.

well it depends on how you are quantifying that 0.1%. Anything in terms of quantum mechanics simply has to take into account the random uncaused nature of the universe on a very small scale. This means all things from semiconductor physics through chemistry, cosmology and all sorts of other things, so this quantum nature of the universe pervades almost everything. fortunately it all averages out in classical models and isn't easily observed, but it is still there on small scales, bubbling away.

And I think you'll agree even (regardless if you believe these things don't have a cause) that the scientists only did their job right if they looked for a cause.

The scientists have been looking for a cause in terms of hidden variables and all sorts of things like that, but these ideas also invariably fall apart and leave us with the conclusion that there is no cause to many of the quantum events I have been describing. Indeed if there is a cause to some of them, it presents massive problems of superluminal information transfer.

Now why would you agree to that if the assumption that cause/effect exists is a poor one?

In the early days of QM the scientists hated the idea of things being causeless - since it went against everything they knew, and tried their hardest to demonstrate that there was something wrong with the idea. It turns out that the assumption of cause and effect is a classical assumption, and the universe is fundamentally not classical in nature. it is classical in schema of medoim sizes accelerations and relative velocities as we are accustomed to, but in the cases of extremely small or large sizes, high velocities or high accelerations, those classical assumptions have a nasty habit of falling apart at the seams and making no sense whatsoever.

 

[Code-Monkey]

no, your suggestions are not an accurate reflection of what scientists are saying. Scientists do actually say those events are uncaused - not because they can't find a cause or the experiments aren't good enough, but because these events are theoretically and empirically causeless. It falls out of the maths that they are uncaused and it falls out in the experiment too, because the experiments agree with the maths every time.

My point is I want to hear it from some QM scientists. I'd like to see links to articles. I'd like someone to provide evidence for this claim, that QM scientists have empirically shown that there is no cause.

And after we've all agreed that it is possible to prove a negative, I think it's time we brought back to the table the idea that atheists need to prove that God does not exist. Just kidding.

 

[Jet Black]

My point is I want to hear it from some QM scientists. I'd like to see links to articles. I'd like someone to provide evidence for this claim, that QM scientists have empirically shown that there is no cause.

I like the way you are shifting your position. you start with the premise that cause and effect is just common sense. so we look at QM and say that it isn't. then you want some names and scientists who say that there are causeless events, and I provide a whole field of scientists (if you want names, we can start from the beginning with Heisenberg and end up with Hawking) and now you want an emprical demonstration that there is no cause. I am not even going to attempt to defend that, though if you have an interest, look up Bell's inequalities and the EPR paradox. Ultimately my disagreement with you was regarding your claim that causality is common sense. it just isn't, because from what we know of QM, it certainly isn't the case that causality is obvious, since we know of so many examples where it does not apply in either a practical or theoretical framework.

 

[Tomk80]

My point is I want to hear it from some QM scientists. I'd like to see links to articles. I'd like someone to provide evidence for this claim, that QM scientists have empirically shown that there is no cause.

The conclusion that events are uncaused (or 'indeterministic') was first drawn by Bohr and Heisenberg in the Copenhagen interpretation. Although this interpretation still gets a lot of resistance, it is the most widely accepted interpretation of QM (link).

It is empiracally shown 'true' in various experiments, mainly by the falsification of theories derived from other interpretations, such as the 'hidden variables' interpretation. See same link.

A number of other interpretations abound, such as 'many worlds'. However, as far as I can tell these are more philosophical in nature than scientific. Scientifically, the copenhagen interpretation has the most validity. What you want to do with that philosophically is up to you.

What this does show, and that goes back to your initial point, is that we have no specific scientific reason to think that causality is definitely always present. No matter how much it goes against our 'common sense', we have as of yet no clear indication of causality in QM, despite the many physicists and philosophers who would like to draw a different conclusion.

This link on non-locality (another interesting QM-phenomenon) might also be interesting in regard to the above. It also contains links to Bell's theorem, which is important in this discussion.

 

[Code-Monkey]

The conclusion that events are uncaused (or 'indeterministic') was first drawn by Bohr and Heisenberg in the Copenhagen interpretation. Although this interpretation still gets a lot of resistance, it is the most widely accepted interpretation of QM (link).

Thanks for the links. This is what I was looking for. Just a couple of points:

1. The indeterministic viewpoint is one of many interpretations.
2. Some folks suggest it might be true by the fact that it's more popular than some of the other intepretations.
3. There is admittedly a fair amount of philosophy going on within the interpretation.

Thanks again though, this is what I was looking for.

 

[Randall McNally]

2. Some folks suggest it might be true by the fact that it's more popular than some of the other intepretations.

I have not seen anyone do that. At least not on this thread.

 

[Tomk80]

2. Some folks suggest it might be true by the fact that it's more popular than some of the other intepretations.

I'd like to go into this a little deeper. You asserted in one of your posts that 'everything happens for a reason' and that this 'the entire field of science relies on this happening'. But regardless of the interpretations, at this point physicists still have to necessarily regard QM-phenomena as 'causeless' (or better, indeterministic). Regardless of their interpretations of these indeterministic phenomena, at this point physicists have no other choice but to treat these phenomena as such. So your assertion that the entire field of science relies on causality is not true, since in QM there is no reliance on causality, regardless of the way in which people interpret this indeterminism.

 

[Code-Monkey]

I'd like to go into this a little deeper. You asserted in one of your posts that 'everything happens for a reason' and that this 'the entire field of science relies on this happening'. But regardless of the interpretations, at this point physicists still have to necessarily regard QM-phenomena as 'causeless' (or better, indeterministic). Regardless of their interpretations of these indeterministic phenomena, at this point physicists have no other choice but to treat these phenomena as such. So your assertion that the entire field of science relies on causality is not true, since in QM there is no reliance on causality, regardless of the way in which people interpret this indeterminism.

At this point, as one of the links pointed out and one of the QM scientists admitted, we no longer are discussing science, but philosophy. So science still is predicated on cause/effect. But since science did not find a cause/effect, the question becomes a philosophical one.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

random quantum fluctuation

Quantum fluctuations require time...in order to have time, you must have space, and vice versa...where did it come from?

This is why Quantum arguments against a first cause are rubbish.

 

[Tomk80]

Quantum fluctuations require time...

But we don't know whether they have a cause, since we haven't found one yet.

in order to have time, you must have space, and vice versa...where did it come from?

This is why Quantum arguments against a first cause are rubbish.

No they aren't. On two counts.

First, at this point, we still can't state any cause for many different quantum phenomena. One of the possible interpretations is that cause and effect do not hold in quantum mechanics, at least not in the way we know them. If this is the cause, a 'first cause' becomes unnecessary.

Second, we have the suspicion that time did not exist before the big bang, or before space came into existance for that matter. If time does not exist, talking about 'first' and 'last' and 'cause and effect' become meaningless, because all those words denote an event in time. If time doesn't exist, those words lose all there meaning.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

But we don't know whether they have a cause, since we haven't found one yet.


No they aren't. On two counts.

First, at this point, we still can't state any cause for many different quantum phenomena. One of the possible interpretations is that cause and effect do not hold in quantum mechanics, at least not in the way we know them. If this is the cause, a 'first cause' becomes unnecessary.

Second, we have the suspicion that time did not exist before the big bang, or before space came into existance for that matter. If time does not exist, talking about 'first' and 'last' and 'cause and effect' become meaningless, because all those words denote an event in time. If time doesn't exist, those words lose all there meaning.

You are right, time did not exist before the creation of space. They had to both be created at the first instant. You can't have quantum events without time, thus quantum events are a horrible explanation for the creation of time/space.

 

[Tomk80]

You are right, time did not exist before the creation of space. They had to both be created at the first instant. You can't have quantum events without time, thus quantum events are a horrible explanation for the creation of time/space.

We don't know whether you can have quantum events without time. We have no idea what something 'without time' looks like, behaves like.

But quantum events are indeed no explanation for the creation of time/space. However, they do show us that things do not necessarily have a cause, as quantum events do not show one. If things can happen without a cause, and at present we have no reason to think they can't except for our own incredulity, positing a 'first cause' for the creation of space time becomes unnecessary.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

We don't know whether you can have quantum events without time

Yes, we do.

 

[Tomk80]

Yes, we do.

Then pray tell me how we know?

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Then pray tell me how we know?

By their definition they require time...

Quantum mechanics is founded on the concept that there are finite probabilities for quantum events to take place within certain time intervals. The greater the interval of time, the greater the probablitity. But, without time no quantum event is possible.

 

[Tomk80]

By their definition they require time...

Quantum mechanics is founded on the concept that there are finite probabilities for quantum events to take place within certain time intervals. The greater the interval of time, the greater the probablitity. But, without time no quantum event is possible.

Makes sense

 

[Socrastein]

Dominus:

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Found/08Void.pdf

 

[Code-Monkey]

Dominus:

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Found/08Void.pdf

I especially liked these sentences:

If a creator plays any role in our universe, it must be through actions taken after the Planck time. All of this is based on currently known principles of physics.

Last time I looked, physics wasn't generally in the business of making many theories about what a deity could or could not do.

The writer of this makes so many references to theology, the development of religion, and so forth, that it's hard to find him credible in any field. But it is nice that he puts his agenda or motive at the top of the paper:

While this scenario may not turn out to be correct or need modification as our knowledge evolves, it at least represents a counterexample serving to refute the claims one hears frequently these days that current scientific knowledge necessarily points to a supernatural creation of the universe.

The thing he must not have realized is that even if his article had valid claims against a supernatural creator, if it's shown to be unsound, then it doesn't itself refute the need to point to a supernatural creation.

This article I think is a pretty good illustration at why some people are getting frustrated with science. Science itself is great. There is a great deal of philosophy masquerading as science. But it's still played off as if it is entirely science at times. Real science doesn't make any sort of connection between evolution and a suggestion that God was or wasn't involved. Real science knows it can't know anything about God. But there doesn't seem to be an end of people who start off trying to explain why christianity/religion in general is wrong and they begin talking about the age of enlightenment, evolution, and so forth. We also see the results on the religious side where religious folks get outright scared and aggressive when they hear theory X is picking up steam. We should almost begin to require that "scientific" articles have disclaimers on some of them that say, "Please be advised that some of the material you are about to read is philosophy and not science. This philosophy may or may not be true, this is not the expert field of the person writing this article. The author of this article is simply trying to make a case that his philosophy is consistent with his science. No animals were harmed in the making of this paper. But many trees were cut down."

 

[Randall McNally]

Last time I looked, physics wasn't generally in the business of making many theories about what a deity could or could not do.

I think what he's saying is that there are really no other systematic gaps where modern physics seems wholly inadequate, where a non-physical entity could operate unseen.

So I guess he's basically eliminating the ad hoc entities right off the bat.