Can something happen without anything else causing it?

  • gedhrel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Even the standard formulation of newtonian dynamics admits nondeterminism. (This requires a non-Lipschitz setup to work; and in any case it doesn’t describe the world we live in. Also it’s a mathematical description, not the real thing.)

  • Daemon Silverstein@calckey.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    @eierschaukeln@kbin.earth !asklemmy@lemmy.ml

    I’ll try to bridge science, philosophy and spirituality, as I usually do. To me, there aren’t clear boundaries between them bc, to me, they’re highly complementary: Science offers the skeptical-empirical rigor and materiality, Philosophy offers the paradoxical questioning and Spirituality emerges from subjectively perceiving the previous two.

    I start with the hypothesis that the universe always existed. In such a case, the Big Bang isn’t the beginning: rather, it’d be some kind of cyclical cosmic phenomenon where matter and/or the fabric of spacetime continuum collapse (due to expansion) only to explode and expand again. This would respect the Laws of Thermodynamics (and Lavoisier Principle) because there’s no energy nor mass being created nor destroyed, just transformed, endlessly. Big Crunch deserves mention bc it’s exactly what it’s about.

    There’s also the controversial theory of Zero-sum, where the universe doesn’t actually exist. It may sound crazy (We are existent… or are we? Vsauce song starts playing), but it would also respect the aforementioned laws: there’s no need of creation or destruction if the overall sum of everything equals to a round nought.

    We could also mention the Multiverse theory, String (M-Theory), and Big Bounce. In such a scenario, this universe is just one of countless universes, so the factor sparking it into existence would be outside it, thus outside (beyond) space and time.

    The latter takes us into philosophy, the Aristotle’s Prime Mover. It could be seen as the “thing” beyond this universe, except that it isn’t a “thing” because it has no “thingness”, but this lack of “thingness” would imply non-existence, except that it’s not something nonexistent either. Here is where human language struggles to define it: language requires “thingness” and temporality, yet the Prime Mover has neither (and it isn’t an “it” so it could “have”).

    This takes us to spirituality. Many religions oversimplify this as “creator deity(ies)”, and many (if not all) religions tend to give it agency and shape. While I do have some religiosity (Luciferianism) and tendency of personification (e.g. Lilith as both a red-haired woman and an owl), I also hold the belief that cosmic forces have no particular form, it’s just me trying to give some Order to Chaos… And that’s what the whole existence seems to be about: Ordo ab Chao, a cosmic, eternal tug-of-war where it’s guaranteed that the “sparks” of cosmic order will eventually decay back to a soup of primordial chaos, only to the very chaotic nature of this soup to emerge order again. It’s akin to a Double Pendulum, where sometimes the apparent rhythmic motion vanishes into chaotic motion just for the rhythm to unexpectedly reappear later, but it’s just the Cosmos: endless and uncaring about lifeforms, for life is just stardust.

    I could explain more, but I’m limited to 3000 chars so I must end: Cosmos always existed and never existed.

    • eierschaukeln@kbin.earthOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Good text 👍 Faster to read through than it looks. The result probably is that we just don’t exist 🙂

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    The only candidate for that ever being observed is the collapse of quantum wavefunctions, and there’s interpretations where that’s not really random either. Everything else we’ve ever measured is definitely totally deterministic.

  • WatDabney@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    It appears that every action is a reaction (or to use the more customary terminology, every action is an effect of some number of causes, and is in turn a cause for some number of effects).

    However, it must either be the case that there was a first action, which would necessarily be an uncaused effect, or that time is either a loop or is infinite in extent, such that there is no beginning and thus no need for an uncaused effect.

    And none of those possibilities is really intellectually satisfying, so it’s an open question (which doesn’t stop people from insisting on the nominal truth of one or another of them).

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      19 hours ago

      And even with the loop or eternal universe, you can ask where it came from. Like why is it there, and not nothing?

    • eierschaukeln@kbin.earthOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      Thanks for putting so much effort in your answer. If you think about it, it’s kinda scuffed and you either end with existence is not possible or there was an action that was not caused by one. Just like you said.

      • jbrains@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        This is the kind of paradox that leads us (I mean humans more generally) to look for some fundamental assumption we’re making about time that will turn out to be wrong. I assume that’s true although I wonder whether it’s literally impossible for us to even imagine how time “truly” works, let alone measure it.

  • Derpenheim@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    That strongly depends on your reference frame. As in, what system are you looking at? Where are you drawing your box? If your box is around the entire universe, then yes, every action is a reaction stemming from the big bang, with very few notable exceptions pertaining to black holes that I wont go into.

    However, if your reference frame is a hand and a ball, then the hand pushing the ball is an original action, the ball moving its reaction.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      20 hours ago

      What do you mean about the black holes?

      It’s also worth noting, I think, that the universe might be spatially infinite, which makes “box” a funny way of saying it.

      • Derpenheim@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Well, its kind of a matter of debate really on the black holes, and its in regard to the law of conservation of information. I’ll freely admit, we are getting to the edge of my understanding here, but essentially black holes very nature of being inescapable by anything means that information, once inside, is permanently lost.

        The reason hawking radiation was such a big deal is that it found a way for this information to potentially be released into the universe once again. That radiation is actually a pair of “virtual particles” (which aren’t real particles, more a mathematical trick to describe complex interactions between different fields and their particles). One of the particles “pops in” to existence on the inside of the event horizon and one on the outside, thus separating the pair. One falls in, one escapes. But since they didn’t annihilate the energy that the now real particle has must come from the black hole, hence, the energy has escaped the black hole.

        Now, is that “action” a reaction, or is it a brand new action with no inciting incident? I dont have an answer, and its up to speculation because hawking radiation may or may not even exist. But its our best guess.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          18 hours ago

          I mean, action and reaction aren’t rigorously defined concepts. When a nucleus spontaneously decays, you could just as well say that’s an action with no reaction by that measure, but it happens all over the place. Vacuum polarisation from an electromagnetic field is even closer.

          • Derpenheim@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            17 hours ago

            While I would agree, both of those are theoretical - just like my example. The truth is we haven’t, and can’t, test these things and see their mechanisms take place because of their timescales. But it is a really fun thought experiment

      • MurrayL@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Not if your chosen reference frame is a hand and a ball, as per the example

        • pebbles@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          I mean aren’t you saying: “Something can happen without a cause if we just ignore the cause.”

          I read ops question as about reality, not hypothetical universes that contain a hand that moves a without an arm or brain attached.

          • Derpenheim@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I get the confusion, but a reference frame is a very important limitation for calculating what you need. Its not about whether the arm exists behind the hand, but whether its effects are important for the calculation.

            For the sake of the hand pushing the ball, its not. Only the momentum of the hand and the inertia of the ball are important.

            • Maeve@kbin.earth
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              I understand very well, and also understand anyone with the capacity will understand the frame of reference doesn’t explain the phenomenon. It’s how we went from four corners to heliocentrism to galaxy, universe, and multiverse.

    • jaxxed@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      In physics, we can’t really consider the universe to be deterministic at the quantum scale. We only think it must be when we try to look at particle interactions as a scaled down billards game.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Wow, I’d never heard of that.

      I wonder if there’s a quantum mechanical equivalent you could make. This has the loophole that we don’t live in a purely Newtonian universe.

      • pcalau12i@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Many of the interpretations of quantum mechanics are nondeterministic.

        1. Relational quantum mechanics interprets particles as taking on discrete states at random whenever they interact with another particle, but only in relation to what they interact with and not in relation to anything else. That means particles don’t have absolute properties, like, if you measure its spin to be +1/2, this is not an absolute property, but a property that exists only relative to you/your measuring device. Each interaction leads to particles taking on definite states randomly according to the statistics predicted by quantum theory, but only in relation to things participating in those interactions.

        2. Time-symmetric interpretations explain violations of Bell inequalities through rejecting a fundamental arrow of time. Without it, there’s no reason to evolve the state vector in a single time-direction. It thus adopts the Two-State Vector Formalism which evolves it in both directions simultaneously. When you do this, you find it places enough constructs on the particles give you absolutely deterministic values called weak values, but these weak values are not what you directly measure. What you directly measure are the “strong” values. You can interpret it such that every time two particles interact, they take on “strong” values randomly according to a rule called the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz rule. This makes time-symmetric interpretations local realist but not local deterministic, as it can explain violations of Bell inequalities through local information stored in the particles, but that local information still only statistically determines what you observe.

        3. Objective collapse models are not really interpretations but new models because they can’t universally reproduce the mathematics of quantum theory, but some serious physicists have explored them as possibilities and they are also fundamentally random. You assume that particles literally spread out as waves until some threshold is met then they collapse down randomly into classical particles. The reason this can’t reproduce the mathematics of quantum theory is because this implies quantum effects cannot be scaled beyond whatever that threshold is, but no such threshold exists in traditional quantum mechanics, so such a theory must necessarily deviate from its predictions at that threshold. However, it is very hard to scale quantum effects to large scales, so if you place the threshold high enough, you can’t practically distinguish it from traditional quantum mechanics.

  • jaxxed@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    Are we looking at the physical universe, or are looking at psychology, or philosophy contexts?

      • orbitz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Yes and maybe not then. Look at Newton’s law, even it deals with psychology if not physical action and realize that we (under some theories) have free will to make the actions that will cause those. So something will happen to make you (or someone else) do an action and even if you (or they) don’t like it it happened. You can look at it from 1000 angles but either way someone with that personality would make it happen that way.

        So gotta just accept, it is what it is, try and make it better and I hope it works out. Mean unless you can see the future and change things, we all are who we are, may. It be worth knowing or hanging out with but somebody probably made something you don’t want to happen, happen. C’est la vie.

  • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    What is the salient meaning to something that has literally no connection with the past? Wouldn’t that be tantamount to a “proof of god” situation just expressed in different terms?