Big Bang...How Did it Happen?

Right.But also, because we've found things for which we've found no cause, we can't say yet that "cause and effect" always apply. Not exactly... what happened was, there was this math that everybody thought was totally abstract, that they thought couldn't possibly model anything in the real world - "imaginary" numbers, etc. - and it turned out that it, and only it, models quantum mechanics accurately.

Not offhand, no... maybe Darwin Storm could. Well, motion is position over time, right? So, given the equation describing the motion of an object and a given time, you can solve for the objects position at that time.You can do more, too. You can change the equation in such a way that now, it gives you the object's speed over time. You can change that equation in the same way (called "taking the derivative") and get the object's accelleration (or change in speed) over time.This is the basic stuff. I can't give you examples because I don't know any, but pretty much, what calculus does is describe the motion of objects in ways that let you find out other things, like speed and accelleration.

It's not that we've been unable to find causes; it's that we've done experiments for which the best explanations are causeless.At that point, there's absolutely no reason to propose causes where none can be found simply so that you can say that every effect has a cause.

But scientists should not accept the idea that the effects are caused until we know about the cause.Until then, it is most accurate to say "these effects have no known cause." Of course, at that point, you can hardly offer as axiomatic that "all effects have causes", now can you?

Definition of what? The universality of cause is what is under discussion here. You can't assume it in order to prove it; that's circular.Remember, it's the universe we're talking about here. We don't get to say what the "definitions" are; we're not privy to the axiomatic conditions of the universe. It may very well be the case that some effects have no cause - again, that certainly appears to be the case with QM - or, it may be the case that all effects have causes.But we don't know. There's absolutely no way we can state that "by definition" all effects have causes. Yet this statement is contradicted by observation of certain quantum phenomenon that have no apparent cause.You're engaging in circular reasoning - you conclude that all effects have causes, and then when challanged with a counterexample, you offer your conclusion as evidence that they must, in fact, have an unknown cause.You're using your conclusion to support itself. That's circular reasoning. Ok. But with phenomenon in the universe that we agree have no known cause, there's no way that we can state "all effects have causes". We simply don't know that that's true, and to all appearances, it isn't. Because there's no support for that statement. To all appearances, in fact, that statement is contradicted by observations of quantum behavior. That's hardly a basis to make conclusions. Definition of what?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-20-2004 08:02 PMThis message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-20-2004 08:03 PM

I think he's just being circular. How does he know that all effects have causes? Because all effects have causes. How does he respond to counterexamples of effects with no cause? They must have causes, because all effects have causes.

What law of causality?

How did you come to believe that it applies to the universe?

Strawman argument. We're not saying that no effects have causes; we're saying not all effects are known to have causes.One example of cause and effect doesn't substantiate that all effects have causes. I'm surprised you needed to be told that.

So certainly some effects have causes.But that's not what I asked. What I asked was, how did you come to believe that there are no effects without causes?

Have you been reading the thread? That's rather the point - one, that "ad hoc, ergo propter hoc" is a fallacy; and two, that no finite set of caused effects substiantiates the claim that all effects have causes. That's the point. You can't conclude causality just because one followed the other.

There is no law of causality, though.There's merely the observation that some things follow causality, and some do not appear to. Because it's not a law. You're overreaching to call it a law. It's not even something you've substantiated with evidence; there's simply an observation that some things follow causality, and other things do not appear to.

No, it doesn't.The vast majority of evidence shows that the vast majority of effects have causes. That's it. You can't go from most to all, just because you'd like to.You can't substantiate a claim of all by offering most as evidence. That's logic, and it's just that simple. Given that the most accurate models are those which specifically specify no causes, no, I wouldn't say that's likely at all. QM is the most accurate theory we've ever devised in terms of how well the predictions from the math line up with the real world. If there's a conflict between QM and any other theories, odds are, it's the other theory that has the fatal flaw.

Because gravity is by far the weakest force; too weak to detect by any means at the quantum scale. Isn't it logical to be suspicious of any theory of gravity that doesn't account for QM?