Obviously they cannot. But the behavior of the gas is understood to be the result of the interactions of the particles that constitute it. — John

On a theoretical level sure. But on the practical level no. We don't calculate as if the behaviour of individual particles mattered. We deal with global level variables - pressure, temperature, etc. which we claim/assume to arise from the behaviour of the particles. That's why my initial answer was yes and no. I didn't say I disagree with what you're saying. What you're saying isn't wrong, just not the full story.

That's because you, like other physicists, are using muddled up notions of causality. I've explained for example, how radioactive decay, a phenomenon widely taken to be uncaused in physics is actually caused, and can be explained and understood perfectly by Aristotle's fourfold causality metaphysics. — Agustino

Maybe you are familiar with the philosophers Bertrand Russell and David Hume? They, and many philosophers have noticed that the fundamental physical laws do not contain, or refer to causation, and that in particular, their time-symmetry indicates that causation is not a part of Reality.

The Free Will Theorem goes a bit further and refutes the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

their time-symmetry indicates that causation is not a part of Reality. — tom

What about the second law of thermodynamics, the only theory in physics that has never been questioned - the so called arrow of time? :)

Give a specific example. — Agustino

Any spin-1 boson will suffice. For details, consult the Free Will Theorem.

What about the second law of thermodynamics, the only theory in physics that has never been questioned - the so called arrow of time? — Agustino

What about it?

The gas laws model describe interactions of gas as we have observed. In effect, it does model interactions of individual particles, just only to a specific level-- to the impact of many individual gas particles together in the world we have observed so far.

Nothing about this relationship is necessarily to the world though. At any point, gas might behave differently or cease to exist at all. The gas laws are not a constraint on the world, but rather than expression of the world as we've found it.

As such, there is no "final cause." Gas that behaves to the gas model laws is not necessary at all. It's only so when gas behaves in that way. No doubt gas that is modelled by the gas laws necessarily behaves in that way, but that is an expression, an instance of being, rather than a cause.

On a theoretical level sure. But on the practical level no. — Agustino

Alright, but from the beginning of this discussion I have consistently interpreted the question in the OP to be about the limits of science as theory, not the limits of science as practice.

It all depends on what you mean by 'random' I suppose. From Wikipedia:
Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay, — John

If it is as you claim, that "it all depends on what you mean by 'random' ", then why not explain what you mean.

Any spin-1 boson will suffice. For details, consult the Free Will Theorem. — tom

Well, all that the free-will theorem proves, if anything, is that quantum mechanics is indeterministic. That isn't to say that it is acausal. Science views indeterminism with something being uncaused, but this isn't true at all. With regard to the spin-1 boson. Taking QFT as true, the material cause is the field, the formal cause is the boson, the efficient cause is whatever gave energy to the field to move into the higher state and produce the boson, and the final cause is whatever interaction the boson has (which may indeed be an indeterminate interaction - because it is in the nature of the boson to interact, even randomly if you want, with other particles).

Okay :)

Nothing about this relationship is necessarily to the world though. At any point, gas might behave differently or cease to exist at all. The gas laws are not a constraint on the world, but rather than expression of the world as we've found it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yeeeees >:O just like at any point I may become Bishop of Rome!

The gas laws are not a constraint on the world, but rather than expression of the world as we've found it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, they are necessary. The world couldn't be otherwise. This world couldn't. Maybe some other world could.

As such, there is no "final cause." Gas that behaves to the gas model laws is not necessary at all. It's only so when gas behaves in that way. No doubt gas that is modelled by the gas laws necessarily behaves in that way, but that is an expression, an instance of being, rather than a cause. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Look to what mumbo-jumbo crazy assumptions you have to resort to just because you're worried about the consequences of final causality with regards to God. You have to accept that the laws governing this universe could entirely change tomorrow, and be completely different! Gravity could start repelling us from the Earth rather than attracting us! So crazy...

I was using it in the ordinary sense as it is used in that Wikipedia article. If you are doubtful about what sense a term is being used in you can always ask, instead of assuming it is being used in some other sense you intend; and without giving any explanation of your own usage. :-}

Second law of thermodynamics is partly metaphysical. The arrow of time isn't just a distinction of one state of existence from another, but a identification of a logical difference between the past and future.

The perpetual motion machine, for example, isn't logically impossible because a machine cannot run indefinitely (that might happen, so long as their is a finite state of energy to draw-- practically, the effect of a perpetual motion machine is logically possible. If there was an endless series of finite states to draw on, and doing so had no impact on anything else, the machine would run "perpetually"almost as imagined ), but rather because even a machine that keeps on running is a finite state drawing on other finite states. Time and difference keep moving, even for the machine that runs constantly.

Second law of thermodynamics is partly metaphysical. The arrow of time isn't just a distinction of one state of existence from another, but a identification of a logical difference between the past and future. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Maybe... I'm reluctant to say it is metaphysical.

The perpetual motion machine — TheWillowOfDarkness

Practically it seems impossible.

Well, all that the free-will theorem proves, if anything, is that quantum mechanics is indeterministic. That isn't to say that it is acausal. Science views indeterminism with something being uncaused, but this isn't true at all. With regard to the spin-1 boson. Taking QFT as true, the material cause is the field, the formal cause is the boson, the efficient cause is whatever gave energy to the field to move into the higher state and produce the boson, and the final cause is whatever interaction the boson has (which may indeed be an indeterminate interaction - because it is in the nature of the boson to interact, even randomly if you want, with other particles). — Agustino

Nope, the response of the particle is un-caused and randomness is insufficient to establish the theorem. The Principle of Sufficient Reason is false.

BSing really doesn't help your cause by the way.

Nope, the response of the particle is un-caused — tom

You don't understand what uncaused means. Uncaused means that there is no particle there even. If there is a particle there, then that particle has a certain nature, a certain way of behaving. That way of behaving may be indeterministic in nature. It may be random, it may be spontaneous. All that doesn't mean there isn't a cause. It means there is a cause - that cause is the nature of the particle. It's in the nature of the particle to move, for example, spontaneously. It's in its nature - it's what it means to be that kind of particle.

And a metaphysical principle cannot be falsified by a physical theory.

You don't understand what uncaused means. Uncaused means that there is no particle there even. If there is a particle there, then that particle has a certain nature, a certain way of behaving. That way of behaving may be indeterministic in nature. It may be random, it may be spontaneous. All that doesn't mean there isn't a cause. It means there is a cause - that cause is the nature of the particle. — Agustino

Nope, the response of the particle - more precisely the Reality in the proximity of the particle - is not a function of the past. The particle is free - nothing causes, or can possibly cause its response. All loopholes are closed.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the particle has options, and exercises them.

No, they are necessary. The world couldn't be otherwise. This world couldn't. Maybe some other world could. — Agustino

That's pre-determinism-- not only are is there such gas, but no other outcome was possible. Or in other words, there are no worlds in which gas could be otherwise.

When we say the world "could be otherwise" we are always speaking about some "other world." A possible world, not the actual one. "Could be" doesn't describe the world as it happens. This is why freedom/contingency doesn't clash with the determinism of causality. The necessarily outcome at any moment (the event that occurs) happens not in opposition to freedom, but rather because of it.

The behaviour of gas particles is caused not by an necessary destiny ("final cause"), but in the emergence of new states which amount to the causal outcome. Gas particles moving to increases pressure in a container, for example, only occurs if that outcome emerges. If we happened to reduce the space in a container, only to find the gas stayed where it was or didn't exert any more force, a different possible outcome would occur and the gas model (at least for that interaction would be different). For any causal relationship, the world has to perform it. It cannot be given by a model. Models are expressions, not constraints.

This world could be otherwise. The fact that something happens doesn't mean an alternative is not possible. If someone acts to kills someone else, it doesn't mean they couldn't have acted otherwise. The killing wasn't necessary to this world. It's just what happened. Possibilities aren't touched by this.

You have to accept that the laws governing this universe could entirely change tomorrow, and be completely different! Gravity could start repelling us from the Earth rather than attracting us! So crazy... — Agustino

They could change though. This is basic logic-- one cannot say what must happen in the future based on the knowledge of the present. It's entirely possible the universe could be different tomorrow.

Such a possibility doesn't mean the world will be different though. Possibility is not what's actual. To say it possible the universe could work completely differently doesn't commit to a position to saying that it does. It's not really "crazy" at all. Accepting that gravity might start repelling us from Earth tomorrow is not to think that it will. Indeed, that idea might be rejected entirely. A person may think that although such an event is possible, it will never occur-- a frequent position people hold about what the world does.

Nope, the response of the particle - more precisely the Reality in the proximity of the particle - is not a function of the past. The particle is free - nothing causes, or can possibly cause its response. All loopholes are closed. — tom

Yeah the particle behaves spontaneously. So what? That doesn't mean that it's uncaused. It is caused, because something, namely a field, produces that particle, for once, and secondly because that particle has a certain nature, a nature which causes it to be spontaneous. In other words, doesn't its nature cause its free response? Its nature is such that it has a free response. Nothing uncaused about that. So no - sorry to burst your bubble. There's nothing uncaused about indeterminism :D

I was using it in the ordinary sense as it is used in that Wikipedia article. If you are doubtful about what sense a term is being used in you can always ask, instead of assuming it is being used in some other sense you intend; and without giving any explanation of your own usage. — John

It seems that you are advocating stochastic processes in Nature. There is no such thing!

That's a contradiction: a particle does not pre-exist itself such that it's there with a "nature" that determines its own form.

Practically it seems impossible. — Agustino

For sure. Such a machine would require world different from the one we've observed. With respect to our understanding of "energy," it would effectively break the laws of thermodynamics as we understand them. An endless series of finite states of energy that don't impact on the wider world is effectively an endless internal battery for the machine.

Although it doesn't break what is logically possible, and is consistent with thermodynamics in the metaphysical sense, it utterly contradicts our understanding of thermodynamics as an expression of interacting states. In practical terms, it would effectively mean creating energy out of nothing-- to build this machine would mean granting access to an endless well of energy that otherwise did nothing. With respect to the interactions of the world, it adding an endless supply of energy from nothing more than building the machine itself.

Yeah the particle behaves spontaneously. So what? That doesn't mean that it's uncaused. It is caused, because something, namely a field, produces that particle, for once, and secondly because that particle has a certain nature, a nature which causes it to be spontaneous. In other words, doesn't its nature cause its free response? Its nature is such that it has a free response. Nothing uncaused about that. So no - sorry to burst your bubble. There's nothing uncaused about indeterminism :D — Agustino

This is quite funny. You are simply denying a mathematical result - a proof - based on QM given by two of the smartest mathematicians alive.

Your appeal to "a field" is tragic in its irrelevance. Then you appeal to the nature of the particle "a nature which causes it to be spontaneous". Sure, why not impute emotions while your at it.

Then you ask, "doesn't its nature cause its free response?". Which of the possible responses do you think is caused by "its nature"?

Well, it seems clear that is your opinion, for whatever it's worth.

I don't have an opinion on that and I was merely referring to the way 'random' is thought.

>:O sorry man but you're quite a funny one!

No i don't appeal to a "field". Have you studied quantum field theory? What we call particles are really the fields moving to a higher energy level at a certain location. This is actually science bruv - you should read up on it.

Evidently ALL of its responses, are in part due to its nature. It's simply what being a boson is - behaving that way.

If you can precisely model it in terms of mathematics or mechanistic causal process then you have something that is a matter for science. Anything that cannot be so modeled falls outside its ambit. — John

That is not true at all.

"The scope of any inference is constrained based on whether there is a random sample (RS) and/or random assignment (RA). [...] Random assignment allows for causal inferences for the differences that are observed - the difference in treatment levels causes differences in the mean responses. Random sampling (or at least some sort of representative sample) allows for inferences to be made to the population of interest. If we do no have RA, then causal inferences cannot be made. If we do not have a representative sample, then our inferences are limited to the sampled subjects. "

Greenwood, M., & Banner, K. (2016). A Second Semester Statistics Course with R (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Creative Commons. Page. 50

You can still have a statistical model with out RA, you just cannot make causal inferences. .

Spatiality is not conserved[1][2] as it were, there's literally more of it by the minute, apparently "coming from nothing" if you will.
How does the metaphysical principle, nihil fit ex nihilo[3], account for that in this context?
It doesn't really; the principle isn't unconditional to begin with; a task of inquirers is to delineate such principles.

CAUSATION is entirely outside the realm of science. Even immediate causation can only be stated in terms of "we see this, and then we see that. it seems to always happen in this order." — taylordonbarrett

We know lots about causation.
Say, causation as uni-directional interaction[4], or uni-directional aspects thereof — what we find as related, temporally ordered events.
Causes and effects are events, and events are subsets of changes (contextual) — they occur.
Conversely, not all events are necessarily effects (exemplified by micro-chaos[5][6][7][8]).
Eventually we get to processes (as ontologically distinct from objects, for example).

It seems spatiotemporality is a prerequisite for mentioned micro-chaos.

________
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law#Exact_laws
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

The Self
The idea of the self has always been an idea with infinite possibility, as well as,
a subject in science without evidence to deduce its existence. There have been many scientists spending their entire lives studying neurology, and they still haven’t found a link to a self from past the mechanisms in the brain in your head, that run consciousness. The scientific discovery that the cognitive self has never been doesn’t mean there is no such thing--or maybe this only means that the self is more vast--and we haven’t been able to find its limit. The philosophical contemplation of the self is endless, and generally we become part of what we do in life from things like our jobs or hobbies within society to our dreams of the future, we notice our self apart from the rest. Doctors are called doctors, if someone earns a prestigious title it means they have spent their time becoming something.
And this is traceable, observable, and identifiable in our every day-to-day movement. When we exercise our body changes, there are signs that we can see showing the self in action. While the self is still a mystery to science as far as we can understand it, there are many other ways of finding yourself. We have a self, and it isn’t clear exactly what
that is, but what is clear is that we can accomplish anything. People will spend their
whole lives studying material in hopes that they will one day be seen as something like
a doctor, lawyer, or something else that takes a lifetime to study to be.
The supernatural is an option that would explain what is happening, now we don’t ever fully grasp the supernatural which is why this may just be the kind of answer that exists: there may be something out of our control which is affecting our life. This answer appeals to those who see rational behavior as something that supports the self’s ability to make every movement seem important. Many theories of the self are put together from a wide variety of collections hoping to catch its meaning somewhere in the whole scheme of things. This theory stems from the idea that there is a direct causal relationship between the nature of our daily lives, and consciousness, which could be a link to finding out about the self. Some claim the self isn’t real, and that we are a cog in the rest of the machinery.
We are seen as a network of feelings that flow from our environment, and from the brain in cognitive, emotional, and social ways. But when this is shown as evidently the case, there is still more room to invent a larger scale idea, rather than focusing on yourself take everything into account something so large that you become engulfed by it, eventually leading to it influencing who you are. There is the microscopic level and the macroscopic level, we operate on both, and this contrast gives life to the self. This seems to shed light on the subject, but the brain itself is not entirely predictable from only its underlying activities--from an organ we still don’t completely understand. We are a unified singular being, and so we branch out into our environment and all that it has to offer.
As we live, we grow, when we spend our time focused in on something these two phenomena come together. Depending on the individual person the self may manifest in an incredibly large amount of strange and different ways. According to social psychology, a couple of ways in which we can model the behavior we accept is with ideas such as self-concept, self-awareness, self-esteem, and positive self-image. These are all invaluable to our ability to maneuver through the environment. People interact with each other and
identify by these psychological topics.
To say that the idea of a self is fantasy drawn up by something too large to control doesn’t fit with realistic impressions from experiences in life, as confusing as it may seem, it is always fluid enough to show your individuality. Behavior is almost the foundation for any clue we have to finding the self. And although our general behavior is influenced by reinforcement that doesn’t mean that we have to leave it at that. There are many reasons behind why we choose the reinforcers that we do, and this helps provide us with an image of a self, and one that is more adaptable.
We are ever changing even when we are defined in ultimately finite roles. The ability to think is what can keep us in a category separate from other more objective roles that we fill. We are products of the environment, that think about ourselves subjectively to
control how we grow. This is a necessary survival skill that both moderates our behavior, as well as, the behavior of what we grow from. And to continue to grow we must maintain our perception of what we are.
This plays into the social aspect of life, and that is where we come from. An aspect of life that is there for our every attentive need. The self needs to be seen as a factor when it is reflecting from our every experience. Find out why we have myelin sheaths on our nerve cells. We create these so we can keep our skill level at certain repetitious tasks.

Lit Review
After reviewing all of the sources I have found them to be helpful in discovering more about the phenomenon known as the self. These different sources provide substitutes for what could be seen as the self because there are still some things we don’t know or haven’t discovered--exactly how the brain works along with the extent of consciousness is still one of the world’s mysteries. Although cognitive science describes us as a vast number of networks connected to a larger consciousness, we are still one enigma of day-to-day stimuli. Over eighty phenomena related to what we know as the self is described in my source from Psychology Today on the medically accurate and more scientific side of things, and on the philosophical standpoint I have both Stanford.edu displaying Kant’s take on the mind along with consciousness and Hume’s take on the matter, as well. We are a brain interacting with its environment, whatever that means, but what becomes of it is clear for us to experience as we see what there is in store.
From the website Livescience.com, I have looked over many different conceptual ideas that encapsulate what one would call themselves. A self Landscape is described as containing a continuum of what could be, categorizing an array of complicated concepts to articulate the possibility of the self-compartmentalized. Then more supernatural answers are included, for unsolved mysteries, and a look at unexplainable connections. There are illusions that could yet still be undiscovered. Artificial competition may be inherent, but tricks of the brain provide us with more information.
Individual chemical balance is pointed to on Livescience.com as the reason for our being acting in the uniquely colorful ways that it does. This theory is due to the rate at which neuro and brain science is currently moving. According to a theory on Livescience, put forth by Robert Lawrence Kuhn, as a way of idealizing the notion of the self in a weak emergence theory, he says, ”The self is the product of interacting brain mechanisms, both at the microscopic neuronal level and at the macroscopic brain systems level. Given future neuroscience, eventually the self will be predictable from the brain alone; in other words, brain activity alone could still explain the self entirely.” (Kuhn, Robert Lawrence. “What Is a ‘Self’? Here Are All the Possibilities.” Livescience, December 7, 2016,https://www.livescience.com/57126-what-is-a-self-all-possibilities.html)
The author of the article then gives an interesting counter theory, stating that the self is a product of the before mentioned brain mechanisms, only we will never be able to fully recognize its true maxims or their further widespread acts.
When we are curious about the noise at the end of the hall, or why we keep hearing a faint voice whispering sweet nothings in our ear, people will sometimes turn to the supernatural. How society effects us is as great as how anything would, my source about the psychology of society and its effects on us in covers a range of personal systems that run what we see as reality. Cognitive self along with how we self-conceptualize is bulleted into objectives for searching different regions that would contain most any answer you would hope to discover about yourself in the context of psychology. The Psychological mapping is helpful, in that it mixes what we know as the sensations of who we are, and the actual medical phenomena that would be the source of our actions as we live them out. This edition covers everything from indications about self-esteem to cognition, to social media and online lives.