Causeless effects

[wstein]

I was reading "In Search of Alpha" (NewScientist September 9-15, 2006). In the article they are trying to calculate and measure alpha (but this in not relevant to my topic). In order to calculate alpha one has to sum the probabilities of all possible interactions between sub-atomic during an interaction (collision of particles). While it seems manageable for a small number of quantum particles, there's a problem. One has to account for the 'quantum foam' which may spontaneously create (and normally destroy immediately) additional particles. By chance, these temporary particles may interact with the ones of interest.

Seemingly since these particles must quickly disappear back to the nothingness, no harm done. However, this is a real effect. The experimental part of the article indicates that particle accelerators recognize certain particle interactions by the pattern of by products. These spontaneous particles actually affect a percentage of interactions in significant enough way to complicate pattern recognition in particle detectors of particle accelerators.

If you didn't follow all that, don't worry about it. The thing that struck me is that these temporary quantum particles are generally referred to as spontaneous and random. I think this means the normal chain of cause and effect is not followed. Energy debt quickly corrects the situation and destroys the particles. Although they shortly disappear, it would seem that their effects don't. So this would seem to indicate that effects without causes happen all the time.

On a macro level this would seem to be equivalent to the thought experiment of an inventor of time travel. In this scenario, the inventor's future self builds a time machine and goes back in time to tell himself how to invent time travel. The question is where did the idea for time travel actually come from.

Thoughts, clarifications...

[CFTraveler]

wstein wrote:

The thing that struck me is that these temporary quantum particles are generally referred to as spontaneous and random. I think this means the normal chain of cause and effect is not followed. Energy debt quickly corrects the situation and destroys the particles. Although they shortly disappear, it would seem that their effects don't. That's why I always say the universe is constantly creating itself- the energy remains constant, but the form (effect of virtual particle interaction) changes constantly. I wonder if this has anything to do at all with the apparent expansion of the universe...

[journyman161]

It may be a case of too small a viewpoint. Just because the cause isn't here doesn't mean there isn't one. Also, the virtual particle disappearing doesn't mean it wasn't there in the first place.

I don't think this is a case of causeless effect but rather not enough knowledge.

[skydust]

i have read elsewhere that there is only effect effect effect, and no cause per se. my guides once made it clear that there is only effect, not consequence. superstring theory goes into this too i think.

[journyman161]

OK... I'm a little puzzled as to how the ideas of superstring theory could say there is no cause. String Theory deals with the basic structures (maybe) of the cosmos & how many dimensions there may or may not be making it up. It gets into branes & strings with fixed & non-fixed end points & tries to describe how all this comes together to create the universe we see.

I don't know that it talks about cause & effect at all.

As for effect but not consequence, unless definitions have changed, they would seem to be the same thing. there could be value in convincing someone there is no cause & that effects are not consequences, but IMO, only if you're trying to remove any sense of responsibility for actions.

It's feasible there is only Prime Cause, but that is still Cause. Even if Time is an illusion, within the bounds of Time there is still cause. To predict the future one needs to understand the effects of any action in their fullest - OK, that's practically impossible in this complex universe but the concept is there.

[kiwibonga]

I think there is a big difference between the particles and the time traveler... I know it was just an example, but I want to talk about it :p

The problem is we don't really know how time travel would be achieved. I could envision how it'd be done through consciousness alone -- visiting a past self in a dream -- this has been done by Robert Monroe, if he was telling the truth, that is.

But physical time travel for a person would be entirely different... How would you envision it? It would probably require the creation of a new physical body from thin air in the past, and a duplicate consciousness to be made... So technically, the future time traveler would be a splinter of the actual person's consciousness with an entirely new physical body -- a different person altogether which would register as a "past life" in the overall memory of the traveler's higher self.

About the particles... Well... We as students of the occult don't even know the exact mechanics of apports (the creation of physical matter from an astral concept)... I think C.W. Leadbeater was very close to understanding it -- his book Occult Chemistry is particularly interesting...

In any case, it would seem that physical matter is simply "astral thought stuff" that is organized spatially instead of conceptually.

It is unclear whether that experiment you cited created matter from thin air, or if it pulled it from another dimension, or another time, or if the recorded anomalies are just quirks in the instruments caused by yet-unknown particle reactions.


Anyway... I agree with journyman... Really this is just because of lack of knowledge.. We don't know what those temporary particles are, where they come from, and why they're there... We only know that they exist... That simple fact is enough of a cause, in my mind... The particles' temporary-ness doesn't make them any less "real."

[skydust]

hi journeyman. maybe i remember it incorrectly then, you seem to be more clued up on the theory than i am! what i was referring to was that they said something about that anything is possible and the elements seem to come out of nothing. but again, maybe i misunderstood that.


As for effect but not consequence, unless definitions have changed, they would seem to be the same thing. there could be value in convincing someone there is no cause & that effects are not consequences, but IMO, only if you're trying to remove any sense of responsibility for actions.

yes they are pretty much the same, except that consequence implies something negative and effect just means that something happens, leaving it neutral. this slight difference is more important than it may seem because if we think there is consequence we make ourselves victims of our experience, but if we think theres only effect, we will easier accept what is, without the need to judge it as good or bad. this is by no means not taking responsibility, it IS responsibility because we then know any meaning is just added by us.

also, one could say there is no cause because each perceived cause is the effect of another effect of another effect and so on forever. what was the very first cause that caused the whole wave? i just personally believe it is a more free way to see things than looking for causes and things to blame.

[journyman161]

hi journeyman. maybe i remember it incorrectly then, you seem to be more clued up on the theory than i am! what i was referring to was that they said something about that anything is possible and the elements seem to come out of nothing. but again, maybe i misunderstood thatStrings are at the forefront of science so your view may be as valid as mine or anyone's. But 'anything is possible' doesn't necessarily mean no Cause for things. It may not even mean 'anything is possible' but rather 'anything is possible because we don't know everything & may not yet know the limiting factors.'


yes they are pretty much the same, except that consequence implies something negative and effect just means that something happens, leaving it neutral. this slight difference is more important than it may seem because if we think there is consequence we make ourselves victims of our experience, but if we think theres only effect, we will easier accept what is, without the need to judge it as good or bad. this is by no means not taking responsibility, it IS responsibility because we then know any meaning is just added by usOK, that makes sense. I just get a little concerned when it appears folk may be encouraged to believe there is no self-responsibility - that way lies some of the more horrendous acts perpetrated by Man. I'm still not sure what you say is correct, as it seems to me that without being responsible for what we do, we somehow 'detach' ourselves from any meaning to being here. Just a feeling...


also, one could say there is no cause because each perceived cause is the effect of another effect of another effect and so on forever. what was the very first cause that caused the whole wave? i just personally believe it is a more free way to see things than looking for causes and things to blame.Perhaps... 'Let there be Light'? *grins*