(January 10, 2009 at 12:24 am)infidel666 Wrote: I think there is a sufficient cause versus necessary cause issue for quantum tunneling, etc. Quantum tunneling can't occur without a particle, virtual or otherwise. There has to be some kind of sufficient cause even for that.The conditions under which quantum tunnelling occurs are not what cause quantum tunnelling, since it doesn't necessarily occur when the conditions are met. Obviously quantum tunnelling can't occur if there are no particles in the system, but it might occur if there are. And that's the point: it might. The event itself is spontaneous and uncaused, insofar as there is no prior event which guarantees its occurrence..
(January 10, 2009 at 12:24 am)infidel666 Wrote: But I don't think there is a necessary cause for which the quantum tunneling necessarily follows, unless you say passage of sufficient time to ensure that the tunneling is certain to occur. Am I getting it right? Am I close?Indeed you are.
(January 10, 2009 at 12:24 am)infidel666 Wrote: This determinism vs indeterminism thing is pure philosophy, isn't it? I don't like it when philosophy gets involved with science.Agreed, but I quite like it when science gets involved with philosophy. At least then some headway is made (such as quantum mechanics supporting indeterminism, as opposed to the long-standing philosophical opinion that the universe is deterministic).
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right." - Stargate: SG1
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone. - Charles Darwin
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone. - Charles Darwin