First order logic, set theory and God

[polymath257]

Actually, we know exactly the opposite: cause and effect, as classically understood, do NOT apply to the natural world. From what we know of quantum mechanics, causality is NOT a necessary feature of our universe and, in fact, many quantum events seem to be genuinely uncaused.

A big part of the problem is even defining what it means for a system A to cause an event B. If the notion of causality dictates that *whenever* A happens, then B happens, then we know causality is frequently violated.

Similarly, if you say that B would not happen unless A happens, then this is also violated in quantum systems.

Finally, if you only claim that A *affects* the probabiliy that B occurs, then there *is* causality in quantum systems, but it is clear that this sort of causality is very, very weak and does NOT allow for the type of conclusions you want to derive.

You're still missing the point of the argument.  If the initial "cause" is the trigger, then it defaults as the "cause" for everything since it started the whole thing.  So even if cause isn't necessary now, it couldn't have evolved into a world that doesn't need cause for certain things.  I'm assuming that's why he mentioned the "the straw that broke the camel's back"  If not, we have to explain a random accident independent of cause.  As soon as you say "quantum" you have to assume a value to energy, so that would either make it the cause or part of the cause.  Unless you're suggesting that a large amount of energy just popped out of nowhere by accident and for no apparent reason. Of course that's not even observable on a small scale.  What we see is preexisting energy changing forms.

No, I am getting the argument. But there are three rebuttals.

One with the axioms and the inability to construct the necessary system V without a specific axiom allowing such.

One that says that P1 should only state that *finite* systems have causes (because that is the most we can extrapolate to from our knowledge).

And one that says P1 is simply false in the real world: we know of systems that are uncaused in the real world.

And no, the energy is NOT the cause in a quantum system: if anything it is an effect that is caused by the configuration of the system. But the specific results of a quantum system are *not* caused: there is nothing prior to them that determines what they will be.

And yes, quantum systems do allow for energy to appear (and disappear) in short time intervals. This is a measured effect related to the uncertainty principle. In particular, it explains the spread of masses for systems of very short duration.

As for 'pre-existing energy changing forms', that begs the question of *why* the forms change. And there is no 'cause' for those changes.