[_ Old Earth _] Everything must have a cause

[Crying Rock]

[quote="Crying Rock":3ujjn96y]Who proposed that only objects have causes?

Nobody. You asked for an example of an uncaused object. I said suppose we allow for the sake of argument that all objects have causes...

Did the Big Bang have a cause?

I don't know.

Is it an object or collection of objects?

Or an event?

Are all objects in the universe the result of the Big Bang?

Probably.

As far as quantum physics go, causality is expressed in probabilities because we don't have instruments with high enough resolution to detect the exact causality. That doesn't prove that quantum particles don't have a cause.

I'm not sure about that. The uncertainty principle isn't about the limitations of instruments. There is a fundamental degree of uncertainty.[/quote:3ujjn96y]




Crying Rock wrote:

Who proposed that only objects have causes?

LB wrote:

Nobody. You asked for an example of an uncaused object. I said suppose we allow for the sake of argument that all objects have causes...

Crying Rock wrote:

True, my bad.

Crying Rock wrote:

Did the Big Bang have a cause?

LB wrote:

I don't know.

Crying Rock wrote:

I wonder if the singularity, prior to the Big Bang existed, forever.

Crying Rock: Is it an object or collection of objects?

LB wrote:

Or an event?

CR wrote:

True.

CR wrote:

Are all objects in the universe the result of the Big Bang?

LB wrote:

Probably.

CR wrote:

I agree.

CR wrote:

As far as quantum physics go, causality is expressed in probabilities because we don't have instruments with high enough resolution to detect the exact causality. That doesn't prove that quantum particles don't have a cause.

LB wrote:

I'm not sure about that. The uncertainty principle isn't about the limitations of instruments. There is a fundamental degree of uncertainty.

CR wrote:

Will you please explain?

 

[Crying Rock]

CR wrote:

Are all objects in the universe the result of the Big Bang?

LB wrote:

Probably.

CR wrote:

Now this may be splitting hairs, but are quantum particles objects (or groups of objects)? Or is that

opening a bag of worms?

 

[logical bob]

As a disclaimer, I don't claim to understand quantum mechanics. Here's a good explanation of the uncertainty principle which explain why it's got nothing to do with instrumentation problems.

If, on a very small scale, we don't know exactly where anything is then we have to use probabilities. An atom no longer has electrons moving around it in defined orbits, it has an electron cloud where different points have a different probability of an electron being there. That means that when we're discussing physical events that depend on the behaviour of electrons we're now discussing probabilities. Everything ends up being about probabilities rather than definite facts.

You also get pairs of virtual particles that pop up from nowhere, exist for a moment and then cancel each other out. This would violate the conservation of energy except that they're tiny and they only exist for a very short time, so it's covered by the margin of uncertainty given by the uncertainty priniple. I believe the standard model of QM uses virtual particles to explain various things, so they are significant.

To link to your questions about objects and causes, I see no reason not to call virtual particles objects. It's then quite questionable whether they can be said to have cause as they appear at random and can't be predicted.

 

[Crying Rock]

LB:

To link to your questions about objects and causes, I see no reason not to call virtual particles objects. It's then quite questionable whether they can be said to have cause as they appear at random and can't be predicted.

I respect your "questionable". At the same time, though, could it be that we just haven't quite figured out their cause yet?

CR:

Are all objects in the universe the result of the Big Bang?

LB:

Probably.

 

[logical bob]

I can't really comment on your hope that some kind of deeper determinism will be found to underly quantum randomness but I don't see any justification for it. At best, it makes it a hypothesis, not the self-evident truth it needs to be if the cosmological argument is to work.

Yes, I said all objects were probably caused by the big bang. Thinking about virtual particles, I may well have been wrong. But then physicists like Michiu Kaku have suggested that the big bang may have given rise to the physical laws in the universe and that there my be other universes where things work differently.

I don't know the answers to this stuff, but I think it's clear that with our current understanding, stating "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is simplistic and unjustified.

 

[Crying Rock]

I can't really comment on your hope that some kind of deeper determinism will be found to underly quantum randomness but I don't see any justification for it. At best, it makes it a hypothesis, not the self-evident truth it needs to be if the cosmological argument is to work.

Yes, I said all objects were probably caused by the big bang. Thinking about virtual particles, I may well have been wrong. But then physicists like Michiu Kaku have suggested that the big bang may have given rise to the physical laws in the universe and that there my be other universes where things work differently.

I don't know the answers to this stuff, but I think it's clear that with our current understanding, stating "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is simplistic and unjustified.

I respect your opinion. I'm pretty open minded (a curse from my hippie parents ;) ). Just my opinion, but everything I've observed (without the aid of an electron microscope) seems to have a cause.

No big beef, just my opinion.

I guess it's just something to chew on.