Which is why I think it is arguably justified to refer to such phenomena as “uncaused”, the qualifications @PdotdQ mentions above notwithstanding.
…causality unknown (but not ‘uncaused’!), since we currently do not know the mechanism of or trigger for the event. (If it were truly ‘uncaused’, why wouldn’t all radioisotopes decay at the same rate? There is obviously a difference in causality.)
1 Like
I think this may come down to interpretation of quantum mechanics.
That something happens with 1st order kinetics or follows a normal distribution doesn’t say anything about cause per se .
Perhaps what we are really talking about is what the nature of spontaneous is. When we think of an individual spontaneous event, is it:
- uncaused - random, no mechanism, no particular “reason” behind it
- internally caused - no external influence but something hidden within causes the event to happen
We’re talking about quantum level events (nuclear decay or electron motion) so maybe it depends on our interpretation of quantum mechanics – some of which are deterministic and some which aren’t.
But even if we take the indeterministic Copenhagen interpretation (most popular historically), the observation causes the wavefunction to collapse, even if they don’t cause a particular outcome. So is it uncaused? It seems to me that it’s both yes and no. I don’t think it’s entirely correct to say it’s uncaused. But if QM is not deterministic then I can see how it is in some sense uncaused.
3 Likes
But since different radionuclides decay at different rates, their ‘uncauses’ are different? 
1 Like
I think @Faizal_Ali’s point is that, whatever the probability of decay, it’s hard to pin down precisely why any one nucleus will decay.
That isn’t quite equivalent to uncaused, though.
1 Like
I don’t disagree, I’m just thinking this is a philosophical rather than scientific question at this point, and not one we are likely to solve easily.
2 Likes
Which brings up the topic of worldviews and confirmation biases. We all have them, but a bias can be correct.
To quote philosopher Phil Dowe (Physical Causation):
If I bring a bucket of Pb-210 into the room [which decays to mercury with a certain half-life], and you get radiation sickness, then doubtless I am responsible for your ailment. But in this type of case, I cannot be morally responsible for an action for which I am not causally responsible. Now the causal chain linking my action and your sickness involves a connection constituted by numerous connections like the one just described. Thus the insistence that C [the existence of a lead atom at a certain time t] does not cause E [the production of a mercury atom in the minute following t] on the grounds that there’s no deterministic link entails that I am not morally responsible for your sickness. Which is sick.
5 Likes
I have not had the time to read through the entire thread… but certainly this sentence I quote is not just “sick” … it is false.
Firstly, we are mixing the meanings of “cause/caused” into a messy blur.
Secondly, the word “entailed” is certainly not what you wanted to use, is it?
Entailment is not a frivolous concept, and seems particularly poorly suited to this scenario.
Thirdly, this is no different than arguing that someone is innocent of murder because the accused was not driving the bus into whose path the accused pushed the victim.
Moral guilt can frequently be different from direct causation if the evil plot is hatched by someone other than the innocent by-stander (who might not know about the scheme that is about to unfold around him).
Ultimately all of this is beyond the scope of God’s role in the Universe. He is portrayed as knowing the future of all things, even things that are not controlled by natural laws - - whether it is because he doesn’t choose to control all things, or because he is directly involved in unlawful events.
No, not exactly. It decays because there is a precisely defined probability that it will decay at any given moment. But there are no hidden variables that, if we could measure them, would allow us to predict which atom will decay at which time. That information is unknowable because that is how nature works. It is not unknowable because there are additional factors determining when it decays that we just don’t yet know about.
Which is fair enough, but I do not believe it is germane to the issues @Eddie and @DaleCutler are raising. It seems to me they are having a hard time accepting that there cannot be any hidden variables influencing the timing of the decay of the atom of which we are currently unaware, but if and when we learn of these variables we will be able to predict when a particular atom will decay. Again, according to the most accepted and used models of QM, that is unknowable in principle.
Not a single word in your long quotations refutes, or even addresses, my objections. I take it that either you don’t understand my objections, or did not read them carefully enough. Try reading more slowly and digesting my argument step by step, before digging around the internet for scattershot quotations in order to shoot it down.
Now you are contradicting yourself. You have just said that the phenomenon in question (the timing of a particular radioactive emission) is “uncaused”, whereas previously you argued that the cause of the emission at that particular time was caused by probability. My point was that probability, as such, doesn’t cause anything at all.
I was not undertaking to refute the argument that some quantum events are “uncaused.” I was undertaking only to refute your statements to the effect that the cause of the timing of a particular emission was “probability.” In fact, on your principles, there is no cause at all for the timing of the particular emission, so that is what you should say, not that the cause was probability. Saying that the cause was probability just muddies the intellectual waters.
1 Like
Non-local hidden variables (e.g. Bohmian mechanics) is still a possibility that is consistent with the empirical evidence.
1 Like
Yes. But local hidden variables have been effectively ruled out, if I understand correctly. I should have been clear on that.
Sure. But, to be charitable to @Eddie, as he said, his problem isn’t with interpretations of quantum mechanics, but with just one (alleged) particular argument of yours, namely that
Did you ever hold this position?
2 Likes
What is your understanding of why a particular atom undergoes decay at a particular moment, according to current physics?
I am unaware of any statements by any current physicists regarding why a particular moment is favored. As far as I understand it, some of them (a minority) think there may be a causal explanation that we just don’t know about, while others (a majority) think that such a causal explanation will never be found. But whichever side they take, none of them, to my knowledge, purports to explain the timing in any particular case.
If you want to draw from that the conclusion that the timing of the emissions is “uncaused”, you are welcome to do so. I reserve judgment on that point. But my complaint has not been that you infer lack of causality. My complaint has been that you regard probability as some sort of concrete entity or force or power in nature, which produces particular outcomes.
If you were to limit your claim to, “There is a certain probability that an emission will occur at moment M; there is a vastly greater probability that the emission will occur either before or after M; and physicists don’t have a clue why the actual moment turns out to be M rather than M-1 or M+100,” then I would have no problem with that. But your choice of words has implied that you think that “probability” necessitated the time M, even while you at the same time have spoken of the event as uncaused (implying that the time M is not inevitable).
So which is it? “Probability” dictated the time M, or “probability” dictated no particular time, and M just turned out to be the time? If you’re saying the latter, you are in line with what I take to be the majority view of physicists. But several times you have sounded as if you are saying the former, and I don’t think the former is the view of many physicists.
And, to avoid confusion, the reason they believe it will never be found is because it does not exist.
I don’t. It’s understandable if you misread me in that way, because words are inadequate to completely and accurately describe phenomena that can only really be conveyed thru complex mathematics.
Anyway, the point is that the fact that there is a fixed and constant probability that an atom will decay at any given moment is sufficient explanation for the fact that it decays at one particular moment. No other explanation is needed. Whether this constitutes “causation” is a matter of semantic and metaphysical arguments that are probably insoluble.
And, to avoid even worse confusion, this should be restated with more caution and precision to read:
“They believe it will never be found because they believe it does not exist.”
The mathematical complexities have nothing to do with it. The mathematical complexities concern how the quantum world is conceptualized and how the probabilities are calculated, but that’s not what I’m challenging. I’m challenging only a form of phrasing which would materially mislead most readers, and, further, which is not found in the statements of any physicists that I have read on this subject (as opposed to your layman’s paraphrase of their statements).
No, it’s not “a sufficient explanation.” You are making an error either in English expression, or in reasoning, or both. But as I’ve already explained what the error is, many times, to the best of my ability, trying to restate it again would clearly do no good.