Every event must have an explanation [...] Everything has an explanation [...] Even if the universe is acausal then that just means that events are determined by probabilistic laws that can't be predicted. — luckswallowsall
if so far it seems that the world has explanations then it's more parsimonious to assume that that's the way the world works until there's evidence of something without an explanation. — luckswallowsall
the problem is that you can't have evidence of a world without explanations because that would require an explanation — luckswallowsall
I think it's far more likely that scientists are unable to find causes once we get down to the quantum level than it is the case that there actually are no causes. — luckswallowsall
Setting parsimony aside would be really silly because it's one of the basic principles of deciding how likely a belief is to be true when there is no direct evidence either way. — luckswallowsall
We can't put apreciseprobability on the existence of God but that doesn't stop God from being highly improbable. — luckswallowsall
Effects by definition are caused. — GodlessGirl
I think.
Causeless can be exist and not be exist.
Its Impossible and Possible at the same time.
Let's say we are going to create something out of nothing and that thing is suddenly popped and exist like its nothing, It is said Causeless because that thing is suddenly exist without any cause. But its also considered 'Cause' because hey, we wanted to do it right? — SpaceNBeyond
Instead, let us ask if it is possible for any physical entity or event to exist spontaneously and in isolation from all other physical entities and events. — charles ferraro
As for QM, it is debated as to whether it is truly probabilistic or just seems to be that way. Is it our observation that determines the state/vector of a particle with wave/particle duality or does our observation merely observe the state/vector it was always on.
If it is the former, then I would say that all effects still have causes, however some effects can locate their causes as being in front of them in time. It's not as simple as a past cause creates a future effect. — Mark Dennis
So as much as I wanted their to be a credible argument against determinism I dont think this is it, just that the concept is perhaps softer than people think. However if you think this means causality doesnt work in this case at all feel free to expand on that line of thinking and justify it for us. — Mark Dennis
So maybe the correct thing to say is that the piano was caused by life of inventor/inventor themselves with a future abstraction contributive factor? — Mark Dennis
Let me try and think up some preliminary appropriate wording... — Mark Dennis
Haven’t physicists determined that certain virtual particles emerge spontaneously from the quantum background (empty space)? — charles ferraro
Coming up with terms in philosophy is pretty fair game and one thing you’ll find is that some of the concepts we already know are interpreted differently by different philosophers. — Mark Dennis
No-one has ever observed directly a virtual particle — Devans99
So I doubt that the current version of QM proves existence of causeless effects - it seems it is not a precise enough description of reality to make any such claim. — Devans99
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.