I hope this hasn't been beaten to death, but

[ccmnxc]

I sure some of you are familiar with the objection that virtual particle fluctuations and/or radioactive isotope decay violate specific causal principles we hold to. These would include statements like “Everything that begins to exist has a cause” as well as certain versions of the principle of sufficient reason. I was wondering why both objections (virtual particle fluctuations and radioactive isotope decay) fail in falsifying these causal principles (assuming they do). Thanks in advance.

 

[tonyrey]

Both observations and objections presuppose the existence of the universe.

 

[empther]

Like tonyrey said,

Both observations and objections presuppose the existence of the universe.

Both phenomena mentioned involve a change in something already existing. That we don’t know exactly how these things happen
***is no reason to abandon reason *** :bigyikes:
and say something came into existence without a cause.

 

[polytropos]

I sure some of you are familiar with the objection that virtual particle fluctuations and/or radioactive isotope decay violate specific causal principles we hold to. These would include statements like “Everything that begins to exist has a cause” as well as certain versions of the principle of sufficient reason. I was wondering why both objections (virtual particle fluctuations and radioactive isotope decay) fail in falsifying these causal principles (assuming they do). Thanks in advance.

The whole thing equivocates on what is sufficient for a “cause” (by implying that a cause cannot be indeterministic). But this intuition seems unfounded: Suppose we adapt Schrodinger’s thought experiment (setting aside considerations about observation) by rigging a cat to a Geiger counter, such that when the reading on the Geiger counter increases, the cat dies. We then place a radioactive sample next to the Geiger counter.

Granting indeterminism, when a particle is emitted, it will be emitted randomly. But then the particle still causes the cat to die. The cat’s death was indeterministic, but still caused. So there is no coextension between indeterminism and acausality.

Or, take two different radioactive isotopes of two different elements. They have a different half life. Why? Are their half lives brute facts, or consequent of their atomic structures?

 

[empther]

The whole thing equivocates on what is sufficient for a “cause” (by implying that a cause cannot be indeterministic).

The exact instant when a readioactive atom decays seems to be a matter of chance because we can’t predict it, but it will happen when the isotope’s nucleus gets sufficient energy to overcome the “strong” force that holds it together. If we could measure every quantum of energy flowing through the nucleus and how much is being absorbed by the nucleus, then, one day when we saw the nucleus absorb the right amount of energy, we could say, “All right, everybody. This nucleus is going to blow up now!”

So this isn’t indeterministic in the sense of not having a cause.
So it is with all scientific mysteries.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

empther:

Both phenomena mentioned involve a change in something already existing. That we don’t know exactly how these things happen
is no reason to abandon reason
and say something came into existence without a cause.

The modern idea that such things as electron orbits are “probabilistic” is ridiculous and there could never be any valid grounds for thinking that. Why should we believe something can’t be predicted just because we can’t predict it? We may not know what (5.110000323705 + sqroot(6)) * (3159724589.34587 - -0.3459837457)^342 is, but we don’t conclude that there isn’t an answer.

 

[tonyrey]

There is a vast difference between the causes of individual events and The Cause of the entire universe!