I never claimed anything like that. I said mutations might be caused by quantum fluctuations, and that it’s a toss up whether quantum events are caused or uncaused.
There are endless examples of quantum effects and indeterminacy. While the QM is more evident at small scale, there is no hard line between the classical and quantum worlds. Rather than submit more cases of QM, perhaps just clarify if you hold that QM is uncaused in general.
1 Like
Philosophically or empirically?
As you please, although an empirical account of what causes QM would be pretty ambitious.
Did you see this?
I did read your reply, but as scientists readily admit that they do not have a theory of everything, there seems nothing to further admit, so not much would happen.
Funny, that’s almost.like admitting scientists can’t say QM is either caused or uncaused… and as if that’s a theory of everything
There are different interpretations of QM such as “shut up and calculate”, hidden variables, and many worlds, which are held to be consistent with observation. These involve conceptions of causation. What is funny about that?
those examples you listed are all a variation of it’s caused
Are you able to say an uncaused event is a possibility?
Outside of a miracle, generally not, but that would really depend on how I was using the word.
In classical mechanics, in principle, given complete knowledge of a present state, future states can be determined. In contrast, QM allows that future states can only be statistically allocated, and this is one essential aspect that distinguishes QM from clockwork mechanics. If causation is restricted to a Newtonian state inexorably leading to a unique future state, then QM is of course uncaused by definition. It is the concept, not the word, that matters here.
However, if precisely constrained statistical outcomes are allowed, then these may be considered as caused. The Sun shines due to nuclear processes governed by QM, but I would scarcely consider the Sun to be uncaused or powered by anything mystical. QM does not mean anything goes. So between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, there seems to be a pretty complete accounting for observed events in nature. Again, it is the concept that matters.
So the word “caused” can be used either way, so long as the term is defined. It is a free country. But…under any definition, there is no justification that the idea of QM spontaneity is permissive of all sorts of metaphysical or extra-material happenings, aka quantum woo.
4 Likes
@rsewell thanks for taking the time to put together such a readable explanation for us non-scientists.
“Quantum” is bandied about in popular culture now the way “electric” was about 150 years ago – really meaning “woo.” It actually means something, but most of us don’t have a clue what that is.
And it shows.
That is a good explanation. I also think we would have a better conversation, along with other people here, if you were not reading so much in between my words. Go back and reread my comments and I think you will see I do not think quantum mechanics is akin to all sorts of metaphysical woo.
I did have a serious conversation a few years back with a physicist that claimed a PhD and other marks that added to his credibility. He was the person who introduced me to the A Very Short Introduction books, as he recommended Polkinghorne’s along with a few other QM books. I probably still have the list saved somewhere.
It was his strong belief that at some point whether it’s QM or somewhere more fundamental, that uncaused events are the building blocks. The beginning of spacetime or quantum gravity might have had something to do with it. But it’s been awhile.
So I responded that if the event is uncaused, then it is unexplainable. He couldn’t admit that and his thinking seemed to become disconnected.
Let me see if I can find the comment that got this thread started.
1 Like
But part of it, is this ideology that thinks an uncaused or undetermined event will be random
Look at this
On what basis can science weigh whether an event is caused or uncaused when no cause is apparent? Shouldn’t both hypotheses be equal?
This is like asking science to consider the hypothesis that science doesn’t work. Sure - that may be true in some instance (like an ‘uncaused cause’). But it’s hardly fair to ask science to adjudicate where there is no science to work with. Science is all about understanding cause and effect. So all it can do is try to search out causes. Not metaphysical stuff that might transcend cause and effect. The best science can do if/when it would encounter such a thing is to remain permanently stymied. But there would be no way to forecast whether the failure was permanent because science had run up against a science-impervious wall, or whether it will be something that will (or could in principle) eventually be solved, like countless other things have been.
3 Likes
apparently this also the case with conscious determination 
see my last sentence in the last post which I was still editing/adding as you posted that.
1 Like
I did and didn’t feel any need to say more right now.
Do consider how conscious determination is related to the part of your comment I quoted.
Perhaps. My own limited imagination can’t see how things like ‘consciousness’ or ‘free will’ would ever get ‘solved’ by science (whatever that might mean) - but then again, there are legions of things that have been found out and apparently understood by many that still defy my own imagination/understanding. So my own limitations are hardly any good measure for the limitations that science faces. If I can hang on to any shred of humility, that should prevent me from making too many dogmatic declarations about where all science allegedly can’t go.
2 Likes