Creation / Evolution.

[Theland]

What can you say that you know one thing about evolution?

[Khandro]

OG You say, //I reiterate that beings don't cause themselves,//

Then we are in complete agreement are we not? Somewhere in the distant passed, before even evolution could kick in, something must have caused itself, which as you say, is impossible, is it not?

[naomi24]

Nothing can cause itself because it follows that the something must have already existed. Utter nonsense.

[andy-hughes]

The same two bald men are still fighting over the same comb!

[brainiac]

I found a white feather this afternoon while grubbing out a garden flowerbed. I looked around in anticipation of an angel, something, but, nah, just more flowerbed to do.

[jim360]

Can the Universe cause itself?

If not, why not?

[jim360]

Actually another flaw* of Khandro's reasoning occurs to me: event A can only cause event B if A comes before B **. But that implies an existence of time (how else can you define "before"), which itself was created along with the rest of the Universe. Time doesn't exist outside, or "before", the Universe is created, so there's no Causality issue to resolve. Again, you arrive at the result, confusing though it is, that there's no need to argue that something existed before the Universe in order to cause it.

* The first flaw being that, if there is a First Cause, then why the need to go one step before the Universe itself to some omnipotent deity?
** Nerds can care about a more precise definition of "A is in the past light cone of B", but it doesn't matter here.

[Cloverjo]

Naomi //Nothing can cause itself because it follows that the something must have already existed. Utter nonsense.//

So how are we here?

Sorry if I’ve missed something that was mentioned previously. I haven’t read the whole thread.

[mibn2cweus]

Causality is an attribute of existence. Apart from existence nothing exists . . . causality being no exception.

[naomi24]

Cloverjo, did you create you?

[jim360]

"Back in a few minutes, just going to create myself" is going to be a new euphemism in the future :)

[Mamyalynne]

Puts a new slant on things.

[sanmac]

I really can't explain where in my mine this evolved from, but it is a bit of an example of creation:

[sanmac]

I was so excited I misspelled "mind"!

[Peter Pedant]

// Sorry if I’ve missed something that was mentioned previously. I haven’t read the whole thread.//

more of the same Clove

(sozza gloss on Shostakovitch - Vivaldi's concerti is just one concerto written out 514 times)

[Theland]

So is there a universal law of cause and effect?
Do we at least agree on that?

[beso]

Theland // So is there a universal law of cause and effect?//

Anyone who understands Quantum Mechanics will tell you there is no such Law. What we call cause and effect is actually the averaging of the probabilities among large numbers of random events.

When looking at the finest scale, particles appear from nothing and disappear again all the time without any cause.

Radioactive decay has no cause. It is a matter of probability. One can never say if a particular radioactive isotope will decay when observed for a given time. Only that in a large number of observations the number will be within the laws of probability.

Many events have probabilities that are so low that they are extremely unlikely to happen even in the lifetime of the Universe but that doesn't mean they can't happen.

The Void and Eternity are beyond Space and Time so probabilities become meaningless. Anything that can happen is happening, even something that seems as unimaginably huge to us as our Universe can happen without a cause.

We see things that are tiny to us come and go all the time but in the context of an eternal void, size has no meaning either.

[Khandro]

beso//something that seems as unimaginably huge to us as our Universe can happen without a cause.//

Sez who?

[jim360]

I was referring to "causality", which has a specific meaning in physics, and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what I suspect TL means. I'm not sure I entirely agree with beso's interpretation either, although maybe that is a matter of semantics. Of course it's true that there is no predictive power over when a given event, such as radioactive decay, will happen for a given unstable particle, but that's not, to my mind, the same as saying that there's no "cause". The laws of QM are the "cause"; it's just that Quantum Mechanics is inherently probabilistic, so that only with a large enough collection of unstable particles can you say anything definite.

What I *did* say was that the only way to make sense of causality, or cause and effect, no matter how you understand it, is that there needs to be some sense of a "before" and "after". But the question "what is before the Universe?" is likely to be as meaningless as asking "What is North of the North Pole?"

[Khandro]

I think you are right jim - though it goes without saying, I'm no expert.

Quote - In quantum mechanics, the theory of the microscopic world, there is
a paradox which is similar in spirit to Zeno’s paradox. In 1977, B. Misra
and George Sudarshan of the University of Texas showed theoretically that
the decay of an unstable particle – for example, a radioactive nucleus –
is suppressed by the act of observation. The more times it is observed,
the greater is the suppression. When it is observed continuously, the decay simply does not happen. - Unquote

I think the key word in that is, "theoretically".
It reminds me of, "That's Amazing!" from the Fast Show

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517072-800-science-a-watched-atom-never-decays/#ixzz6DpzJYx1P

[jim360]

It's such a relief to have your endorsement for my interpretations of Physics :P

Although, in all seriousness, I'm glad you've posted an example of the weirdness of QM with the classic "A watched quantum pot never boils" result!