Radiometric decay would be different in the sense that it there is nothing ‘natural’ about it tunneling through a barrier. We can understand the process of radiometric decay-I can for example walk a class through it who has at least had some first year Physics. They won’t really understand solving the Schrodinger equation which forms the foundations of quantum mechanics, but that is the last bit of the derivation. There is no such thing as cause and effect in the probabilistic processes in the same sense as the world we are familiar with. We can certainly understand the process, but it did not have any cause for why one atom just decayed and the other million did not.
I have to ask what you mean by the statement that there is nothing ‘natural’ about it? If it isn’t natural, what is it? Supernatural? It’s natural, i.e., it occurs in the natural world for natural reasons in accordance with the laws of physics. As for radioactive decay and causation, I’m not sure we’re operating under the same definition of causation here. The way I use it, it simply means in simple terms that something occurs directly because something else occurred, and without that something else occurring, the first something wouldn’t have resulted either. Radioactive decay, or lets say beta+ decay happens when a proton converts into a neutron and emits a positron and electron neutrino. But that doesn’t happen for no reason. It occurs because the isotope is unstable, and therefore must lose a proton in its nucleus to try to attain stability. Am I wrong? That seems to be the way it works to me.
Now, you refer me to a paper that I have never been aware of regarding universe creation without causation. I am not a physicist by any means but I see something that does not make sense to me. First, the author says this in section 2.1:
According to the newly suggested theory, CEN, in the beginning there was nothing – no material, no energy, no space and no time. This situation was fully symmetric with no entropy. Therefore, this initial state was allegedly static, with no motive for change.
So in the model, you begin with no space, time, material, energy, nothing, nadda. But later in section 2.2, the author says this:
The above description is in-line with the description of SSB in literature. First, the actual breaking can happen only if some asymmetrical causal factors, such as random perturbations or fluctuations are introduced to the model . In our model the potentially additional NIEs cause an SSB by introducing potential random fluctuations. Second, in the “no boundary conditions” cosmology, favored by several modern cosmologists, there is also no information in the initial conditions – that are entirely symmetrical , and therefore all information must arise through symmetry breaking .
So, in order to break the symmetry of the infinite canceling out NIEs, the author introduces fluctuations into the model. But fluctuations only happen in the fabric of space, do they not? To me, it looks contradictory (I also just searched the paper into google and saw a Reddit thread basically saying the same things). I look forwards to your thoughts.