Incidentally, even if everything did have a cause, that wouldn't prove that randomness exists, since a cause might have an indeterminate effect.
There are too many good arguments against determinism.
Does True Randomness Actually Exist?
Sort:
Optimissed wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Assuming everything has a cause, nothing is completely random.
Tbh, it doesn't seem possible to assume (or to prove) that everything has a cause.
What wouldn't have a cause?
See what I mean? You're asking me to prove it for you!
I cannot find anything that would not have a cause. If I am talking to a group of people, and a ball roles onto the stage, it didn't magically roll on stage, someone roled it there, there is nothing that would not have a cause.
BasixWhiteBoy wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
BasixWhiteBoy wrote:
In my eyes, we cannot answer this question. Using the whole 'everything has a cause' explanation only takes you back so far, and coming from randomness is just as probable. I don't see how you could possibly answer this question while thinking logically.
Everything caused something. bigbang was caused b a factor we don't know. If I steal your ice cream and you punch me in the face, me stealing the ice cream was probably the cause of it. Not everything has an obvious cause, but everything has a cause.
But that cause isn't known, and certainly not proven. The same can be said about randomness, but they're both not out of question.
but just because we don't know the cause doesn't mean there is no cause.
We can never prove randomness doesn't exist, nor that it does. We can only speculate.
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Assuming everything has a cause, nothing is completely random.
Tbh, it doesn't seem possible to assume (or to prove) that everything has a cause.
What wouldn't have a cause?
See what I mean? You're asking me to prove it for you!
I cannot find anything that would not have a cause. If I am talking to a group of people, and a ball roles onto the stage, it didn't magically roll on stage, someone roled it there, there is nothing that would not have a cause.
I can.
If a photon with 45 degree polarisation is sent at a vertical polarising filter, it will go through around 50% of the time and not go through the other 50% of the time. Nothing causes which happens.
If you then use that photon to execute any chosen action, that action was caused by the photon, but whether it happened was the restult of the random outcome of the polarisation measurement (as you can describe sending a photon at a polarising filter).
This is a quantum version of flipping a coin, but with a sort of randomness that is more fundamental.
Elroch wrote:
"Cause" is quite subtle to define in general. For one thing it is obvious that often more than one cause for something exists. For example, a fire is caused both by the existence of something to burn and by something to ignite it. You could say "the cause" was the combination of both of them.
But often it gets much more complex and uncertain, especially when you delve into the quantum world.
The general concept to bear in mind is that to be a cause, one event has to be in the causal past of another, and it has to have increased the probability of the latter event happening. That would be the basis of a good general definition.
Regarding the Big Bang, we are not aware that anything is causally related to it. The very concept of space time in which causal relationships are defined breaks down at the earliest time, and we don't know what replaces it. A reasonable speculation is that something timeless is the cause of all space-time. When scientists find the correct theory of quantum gravity, this might become clearer.
so then it just has multiple causes. Big bang was likely caused by an overheat which lead to the explosion, of course, we have no way of doing this, but as one of Newton's laws says "An object at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts upon it." So something acted upon it. We do not know what, but something did.
Elroch, there's a problem with quotation. I was going to comment on your last one, about "probabilistic cause".
Like if I put an ice block in my wife's sock, she'll probably get pretty angry and quite likely kick me. Could just be she strained a muscle in her foot and it was just the right remedy applied in a timely manner.
Elroch wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Assuming everything has a cause, nothing is completely random.
Tbh, it doesn't seem possible to assume (or to prove) that everything has a cause.
What wouldn't have a cause?
See what I mean? You're asking me to prove it for you!
I cannot find anything that would not have a cause. If I am talking to a group of people, and a ball roles onto the stage, it didn't magically roll on stage, someone roled it there, there is nothing that would not have a cause.
I can.
If a photon with 45 degree polarisation is sent at a vertical polarising filter, it will go through around 50% of the time and not go through the other 50% of the time. Nothing causes which happens.
But there are a lot of conditions for that. The objects, the temprature, the position, so thus it is not completely random. Of course not all filters are the same, and the can get worn out, so there could very well be a cause for that.
Elroch wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Assuming everything has a cause, nothing is completely random.
Tbh, it doesn't seem possible to assume (or to prove) that everything has a cause.
What wouldn't have a cause?
See what I mean? You're asking me to prove it for you!
I cannot find anything that would not have a cause. If I am talking to a group of people, and a ball roles onto the stage, it didn't magically roll on stage, someone roled it there, there is nothing that would not have a cause.
I can.
If a photon with 45 degree polarisation is sent at a vertical polarising filter, it will go through around 50% of the time and not go through the other 50% of the time. Nothing causes which happens.
If you then use that photon to execute any chosen action, that action was caused by the photon, but whether it happened was the restult of the random outcome of the polarisation measurement (as you can describe sending a photon at a polarising filter).
This is a quantum version of flipping a coin, but with a sort of randomness that is more fundamental.
flipping a coin is not random. If it lands on heads, it is because of the way I flicked it, the force applied, the distance from the landing spot, and so on, so it in not at all random, just hard to replicate.
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Elroch wrote:
"Cause" is quite subtle to define in general. For one thing it is obvious that often more than one cause for something exists. For example, a fire is caused both by the existence of something to burn and by something to ignite it. You could say "the cause" was the combination of both of them.
But often it gets much more complex and uncertain, especially when you delve into the quantum world.
The general concept to bear in mind is that to be a cause, one event has to be in the causal past of another, and it has to have increased the probability of the latter event happening. That would be the basis of a good general definition.
Regarding the Big Bang, we are not aware that anything is causally related to it. The very concept of space time in which causal relationships are defined breaks down at the earliest time, and we don't know what replaces it. A reasonable speculation is that something timeless is the cause of all space-time. When scientists find the correct theory of quantum gravity, this might become clearer.
so then it just has multiple causes. Big bang was likely caused by an overheat which lead to the explosion, of course, we have no way of doing this, but as one of Newton's laws says "An object at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts upon it." So something acted upon it. We do not know what, but something did.
I think the Big Bang was caused by a scientist's brain not having the ice block treatment. That's because I don't believe the Big Bang happened. Elroch tends to accept it so it's a safe analogy. I think the universe is a quantum event that takes place on a very small, local scale.
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Elroch wrote:
"Cause" is quite subtle to define in general. For one thing it is obvious that often more than one cause for something exists. For example, a fire is caused both by the existence of something to burn and by something to ignite it. You could say "the cause" was the combination of both of them.
But often it gets much more complex and uncertain, especially when you delve into the quantum world.
The general concept to bear in mind is that to be a cause, one event has to be in the causal past of another, and it has to have increased the probability of the latter event happening. That would be the basis of a good general definition.
Regarding the Big Bang, we are not aware that anything is causally related to it. The very concept of space time in which causal relationships are defined breaks down at the earliest time, and we don't know what replaces it. A reasonable speculation is that something timeless is the cause of all space-time. When scientists find the correct theory of quantum gravity, this might become clearer.
so then it just has multiple causes. Big bang was likely caused by an overheat which lead to the explosion, of course, we have no way of doing this, but as one of Newton's laws says "An object at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts upon it." So something acted upon it. We do not know what, but something did.
The physical reasoning is that the only way you can have the characteristics of the Universe we observe is to have a very uniform expanding hot universe - the remarkable thing is that we can actually see the Universe as it was at 380,000 years after the Big Bang, as an almost uniform hot gas - and the only way you can get to any stage of the expansion we can see is to have an earlier, denser, hotter expansion.
As I mentioned, this reasoning can be taken (with some loose assumptions) right back to where known physics is inadequate and quantum gravity is needed (a Universe that is at the Planck temperature, the Planck density and where we simply don't understand what happens).
Optimissed wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Elroch wrote:
"Cause" is quite subtle to define in general. For one thing it is obvious that often more than one cause for something exists. For example, a fire is caused both by the existence of something to burn and by something to ignite it. You could say "the cause" was the combination of both of them.
But often it gets much more complex and uncertain, especially when you delve into the quantum world.
The general concept to bear in mind is that to be a cause, one event has to be in the causal past of another, and it has to have increased the probability of the latter event happening. That would be the basis of a good general definition.
Regarding the Big Bang, we are not aware that anything is causally related to it. The very concept of space time in which causal relationships are defined breaks down at the earliest time, and we don't know what replaces it. A reasonable speculation is that something timeless is the cause of all space-time. When scientists find the correct theory of quantum gravity, this might become clearer.
so then it just has multiple causes. Big bang was likely caused by an overheat which lead to the explosion, of course, we have no way of doing this, but as one of Newton's laws says "An object at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts upon it." So something acted upon it. We do not know what, but something did.
I think the Big Bang was caused by a scientist's brain not having the ice block treatment. That's because I don't believe the Big Bang happened. Elroch tends to accept it so it's a safe analogy. I think the universe is a quantum event that takes place on a very small, local scale.
I am not sure if the big bang is true. Please DM me, this could be interesting.
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Elroch wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Assuming everything has a cause, nothing is completely random.
Tbh, it doesn't seem possible to assume (or to prove) that everything has a cause.
What wouldn't have a cause?
See what I mean? You're asking me to prove it for you!
I cannot find anything that would not have a cause. If I am talking to a group of people, and a ball roles onto the stage, it didn't magically roll on stage, someone roled it there, there is nothing that would not have a cause.
I can.
If a photon with 45 degree polarisation is sent at a vertical polarising filter, it will go through around 50% of the time and not go through the other 50% of the time. Nothing causes which happens.
If you then use that photon to execute any chosen action, that action was caused by the photon, but whether it happened was the restult of the random outcome of the polarisation measurement (as you can describe sending a photon at a polarising filter).
This is a quantum version of flipping a coin, but with a sort of randomness that is more fundamental.
flipping a coin is not random. If it lands on heads, it is because of the way I flicked it, the force applied, the distance from the landing spot, and so on, so it in not at all random, just hard to replicate.
It's difficult to control how you flip it. I've tried. It also depends on temperature, air pressure, humidity, air movement.
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Elroch wrote:
"Cause" is quite subtle to define in general. For one thing it is obvious that often more than one cause for something exists. For example, a fire is caused both by the existence of something to burn and by something to ignite it. You could say "the cause" was the combination of both of them.
But often it gets much more complex and uncertain, especially when you delve into the quantum world.
The general concept to bear in mind is that to be a cause, one event has to be in the causal past of another, and it has to have increased the probability of the latter event happening. That would be the basis of a good general definition.
Regarding the Big Bang, we are not aware that anything is causally related to it. The very concept of space time in which causal relationships are defined breaks down at the earliest time, and we don't know what replaces it. A reasonable speculation is that something timeless is the cause of all space-time. When scientists find the correct theory of quantum gravity, this might become clearer.
so then it just has multiple causes. Big bang was likely caused by an overheat which lead to the explosion, of course, we have no way of doing this, but as one of Newton's laws says "An object at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts upon it." So something acted upon it. We do not know what, but something did.
I think the Big Bang was caused by a scientist's brain not having the ice block treatment. That's because I don't believe the Big Bang happened. Elroch tends to accept it so it's a safe analogy. I think the universe is a quantum event that takes place on a very small, local scale.
I am not sure if the big bang is true. Please DM me, this could be interesting.
Be specific. What objective proposition do you think is not true?
The Big Bang is a collection of established scientific conclusions about the early Universe, not just one fact. You can only dispute specific propositions (it would be evasive to say one proposition isn't true, but you won't say which!)
Optimissed wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Elroch wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Assuming everything has a cause, nothing is completely random.
Tbh, it doesn't seem possible to assume (or to prove) that everything has a cause.
What wouldn't have a cause?
See what I mean? You're asking me to prove it for you!
I cannot find anything that would not have a cause. If I am talking to a group of people, and a ball roles onto the stage, it didn't magically roll on stage, someone roled it there, there is nothing that would not have a cause.
I can.
If a photon with 45 degree polarisation is sent at a vertical polarising filter, it will go through around 50% of the time and not go through the other 50% of the time. Nothing causes which happens.
If you then use that photon to execute any chosen action, that action was caused by the photon, but whether it happened was the restult of the random outcome of the polarisation measurement (as you can describe sending a photon at a polarising filter).
This is a quantum version of flipping a coin, but with a sort of randomness that is more fundamental.
flipping a coin is not random. If it lands on heads, it is because of the way I flicked it, the force applied, the distance from the landing spot, and so on, so it in not at all random, just hard to replicate.
It's difficult to control how you flip it. I've tried. It also depends on temperature, air pressure, humidity, air movement.
Yes, true, but we both agree the result is not at all random, just so hard to replicate that the result may seem random to us, even though it indeed has causes.
Elroch wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Elroch wrote:
"Cause" is quite subtle to define in general. For one thing it is obvious that often more than one cause for something exists. For example, a fire is caused both by the existence of something to burn and by something to ignite it. You could say "the cause" was the combination of both of them.
But often it gets much more complex and uncertain, especially when you delve into the quantum world.
The general concept to bear in mind is that to be a cause, one event has to be in the causal past of another, and it has to have increased the probability of the latter event happening. That would be the basis of a good general definition.
Regarding the Big Bang, we are not aware that anything is causally related to it. The very concept of space time in which causal relationships are defined breaks down at the earliest time, and we don't know what replaces it. A reasonable speculation is that something timeless is the cause of all space-time. When scientists find the correct theory of quantum gravity, this might become clearer.
so then it just has multiple causes. Big bang was likely caused by an overheat which lead to the explosion, of course, we have no way of doing this, but as one of Newton's laws says "An object at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts upon it." So something acted upon it. We do not know what, but something did.
I think the Big Bang was caused by a scientist's brain not having the ice block treatment. That's because I don't believe the Big Bang happened. Elroch tends to accept it so it's a safe analogy. I think the universe is a quantum event that takes place on a very small, local scale.
I am not sure if the big bang is true. Please DM me, this could be interesting.
Be specific. What objective proposition do you think is not true?
The Big Bang is a collection of established scientific conclusions about the early Universe, not just one fact. You can only dispute specific propositions (it would be evasive to say one proposition isn't true, but you won't say which!)
I didn't say it's not true. I said I am not sure if it is true, and would love to hear his points. How dare scientists hear agruments against theories?
You can perform a scientific experiment to test it. Flip a coin 1000 times and keep score. It would be highly unlikely to be a 500 500 split. But 600 400 would probably be more unlikely. Elroch's a statistician so he might tell us. I'll guess. I think 400 - 600 is over 100 times more unlikely than 500 500.
Given a fair flip.
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Elroch wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Elroch wrote:
"Cause" is quite subtle to define in general. For one thing it is obvious that often more than one cause for something exists. For example, a fire is caused both by the existence of something to burn and by something to ignite it. You could say "the cause" was the combination of both of them.
But often it gets much more complex and uncertain, especially when you delve into the quantum world.
The general concept to bear in mind is that to be a cause, one event has to be in the causal past of another, and it has to have increased the probability of the latter event happening. That would be the basis of a good general definition.
Regarding the Big Bang, we are not aware that anything is causally related to it. The very concept of space time in which causal relationships are defined breaks down at the earliest time, and we don't know what replaces it. A reasonable speculation is that something timeless is the cause of all space-time. When scientists find the correct theory of quantum gravity, this might become clearer.
so then it just has multiple causes. Big bang was likely caused by an overheat which lead to the explosion, of course, we have no way of doing this, but as one of Newton's laws says "An object at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts upon it." So something acted upon it. We do not know what, but something did.
I think the Big Bang was caused by a scientist's brain not having the ice block treatment. That's because I don't believe the Big Bang happened. Elroch tends to accept it so it's a safe analogy. I think the universe is a quantum event that takes place on a very small, local scale.
I am not sure if the big bang is true. Please DM me, this could be interesting.
Be specific. What objective proposition do you think is not true?
The Big Bang is a collection of established scientific conclusions about the early Universe, not just one fact. You can only dispute specific propositions (it would be evasive to say one proposition isn't true, but you won't say which!)
I didn't say it's not true. I said I am not sure if it is true, and would love to hear his points. How dare scientists hear agruments against theories?
My understanding is that a scientist performs experiments to test a theoretician's theorisation.
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Elroch wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
TheSquirePiece wrote:
Elroch wrote:
"Cause" is quite subtle to define in general. For one thing it is obvious that often more than one cause for something exists. For example, a fire is caused both by the existence of something to burn and by something to ignite it. You could say "the cause" was the combination of both of them.
But often it gets much more complex and uncertain, especially when you delve into the quantum world.
The general concept to bear in mind is that to be a cause, one event has to be in the causal past of another, and it has to have increased the probability of the latter event happening. That would be the basis of a good general definition.
Regarding the Big Bang, we are not aware that anything is causally related to it. The very concept of space time in which causal relationships are defined breaks down at the earliest time, and we don't know what replaces it. A reasonable speculation is that something timeless is the cause of all space-time. When scientists find the correct theory of quantum gravity, this might become clearer.
so then it just has multiple causes. Big bang was likely caused by an overheat which lead to the explosion, of course, we have no way of doing this, but as one of Newton's laws says "An object at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts upon it." So something acted upon it. We do not know what, but something did.
I think the Big Bang was caused by a scientist's brain not having the ice block treatment. That's because I don't believe the Big Bang happened. Elroch tends to accept it so it's a safe analogy. I think the universe is a quantum event that takes place on a very small, local scale.
I am not sure if the big bang is true. Please DM me, this could be interesting.
Be specific. What objective proposition do you think is not true?
The Big Bang is a collection of established scientific conclusions about the early Universe, not just one fact. You can only dispute specific propositions (it would be evasive to say one proposition isn't true, but you won't say which!)
I didn't say it's not true. I said I am not sure if it is true, and would love to hear his points. How dare scientists hear agruments against theories?
I commend you for expressing uncertainty rather than certain disbelief. I did notice this, and should have been as precise.
But a very similar response applies - clarify what proposition it is that you are not sure is true.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
In my eyes, we cannot answer this question. Using the whole 'everything has a cause' explanation only takes you back so far, and coming from randomness is just as probable. I don't see how you could possibly answer this question while thinking logically.
Everything caused something. bigbang was caused b a factor we don't know. If I steal your ice cream and you punch me in the face, me stealing the ice cream was probably the cause of it. Not everything has an obvious cause, but everything has a cause.
But that cause isn't known, and certainly not proven. The same can be said about randomness, but they're both not out of question.