A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained

What would be an example of science being done that does not employ the constraints of cause and effect? Science is the observation of a cause or an effect and then predicting the cause or the effect as the case may be. You cant do much science without the principal of cause and effect.

So is this statement from these guys incorrect?

quote:

---

The reason alpha decay occurs is because the nucleus has too many protons which cause excessive repulsion. In an attempt to reduce the repulsion, a Helium nucleus is emitted. The way it works is that the Helium nuclei are in constant collision with the walls of the nucleus and because of its energy and mass, there exists a nonzero probability of transmission.

---

I fully appreciate that most of physics is beyond my comprehension and that my approach to understanding the universe relies primarily on my intuition. That is, comparing new information with what I already know. When we look at the combined body of knowledge that we have concerning the universe we see that everything has a cause save for some very small things at one end of the scale and some very large things at the other end.I do not understand why we draw the conclusion that something does not have a cause when we see that every other thing that we have come to understand, does have a cause. Why do we not conclude that we simply have not found the cause yet?

For the love of Dog man, don't ask me! I mean you might as well ask me why my wife reacts completely differently to identical situations on different days. I would be the first to agree that there is no apparent rhyme or reason for her reactions sometimes but deep down I am sure that there are some however circuitous the causal chain may be. I guess my answer would be that the 2 nuclei in question are not, in fact, identical. Or that the forces acting upon them are not identical. (abe; or that alpha particles are actually female)My point is that when we examine the universe we see that 99.9999...% of all things have a cause. It seems a mighty leap to encounter something that we do not fully understand and come to the conclusion that there is no cause for it. It seems akin to invoking a god.Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.

Thanks for the replies all.I guess that I have to conclude that QM is simply beyond my capacity to understand. When reading about the KS theorem nearly every sentence requires 3 more pages of reading. It is like falling down a fractal well and after about 2 iterations I forget what the hell it was that I was trying to understand.Is it fair to say that the issue has not actually been resolved and that there are some people who understand this stuff and who support the idea that the universe is deterministic all the way down? Or is there a consensus?

Thanks Son Goku, that was remarkably clear and not at all like the 'phynglish' that I have been reading lately. I appreciate that I have jumped into the deep end of the pool before learning to swim and that is not anybody's fault but mine. I have to find the first thing that I do not understand and work from there. I think that I am working from the false assumption that I can 'really' understand QM without actually understanding each bit. This comes from a lifetime of successfully finding short cuts. I find myself in the uncomfortable position of not understanding it to the point of not even being able to formulate pertinent questions and that I am basically wasting everyone's time while I try to get up to speed. If I back away from the explanation of why the universe is acausal at some level and accept that it is, at what point and how does the universe change from being acausal to causal? Is this even a valid question? I get the feeling that causality is not even what I think it is as Dr. A seemed to be suggesting.

To Dr A and Son Goku,It is not that I have nothing to say it is just that I am busy shifting a paradigm here so I will just say thanks for your replies and also for tolerating my glaring ignorance. You teachers make the world(s) a better place.

That is pretty funny Alfred. In case you missed it, my username and avatar are a satirical and slightly ironic jab at people who hold onto their beliefs in spite of their reason. Something that I make every effort not to do. So, no Godmameat for me. I am looking for the bacon double cheeseburger of truth, even if the cheese is blue.My challenge is that I realize that my long held perception of the universe is not sufficiently informed and that the remedy for that comes in a language that I do not speak. C'est la vie. So now, either I learn enough of the language to get the gist of it or I carry on in ignorance.What you are doing is to demand that the new language matches the old one. Dogmatic by definition. I can sympathize because it is what I am doing with my questions. The difference is that I recognize the fact. I think that I have remarked to you previously that seeing a shadow and concluding that something is blocking the light is not the same thing as 'seeing' a ghost. Funny that you should mention it though because I was just looking at a picture of the shadow of an atom. Why? Why not just another spectrum like everything else in the universe?

Why are we still looking for a unified theory if everything just bleeds together in a spectrum of probabilities?