Is Chance a Cause?
I'm unsure if the question is ill-formed (@Banno's pet peeve) or not but the atheistic alternative to a creator deity is chance i.e. if you ask "how did the universe came to be?", atheists reply "it's just a fluke".
This paints a picture of the universe being some kind of lottery conducting random trials over eons until it hits the right combination of god knows what and voila!, a universe is born. The universe, in this regard, can be construed as a chance event but it doesn't make sense to say chance caused the birth of the universe; in other words we still need to find out the cause of the universe's existence.
A simple example to illustrate my point: A mutation in a gene is a chance event alright but it's caused by mutagens (tobacco, tar, benzene, UV radiation, etc.).
What sayest thou?
This paints a picture of the universe being some kind of lottery conducting random trials over eons until it hits the right combination of god knows what and voila!, a universe is born. The universe, in this regard, can be construed as a chance event but it doesn't make sense to say chance caused the birth of the universe; in other words we still need to find out the cause of the universe's existence.
A simple example to illustrate my point: A mutation in a gene is a chance event alright but it's caused by mutagens (tobacco, tar, benzene, UV radiation, etc.).
What sayest thou?
Comments (46)
A creator is merely a personification of "a fluke", no? And Occan's Razor reminds us that we can do without the added personification (à la Laplace).
Otherwise, the universe might not have "come to be" at all but rather eternally transforms (e.g. A. Guth) from one 'configuration of physical constants' into another (e.g. R. Penrose's 'conformal cyclic universes') whereby, occasionally, sentient metacognitive agents evolve and interpret their universes in perspectival terms (e.g. a personified fluke aka "creator").
When asked, Smith, the most reasonable answer, it seems to me, is "All that we know is that the observable universe is here and that we can only measure the age of its currently observable state to be about 13.81 billion years old; that's all we know so far, anything else today chance or creator is fiction." Now as for the fiction I prefer when I'm in more speculative mood, it's akin to pandeism there is no creator because it suicidally (by chance?) blew itself up and the debris became (by chance?) the universe. Works for me without being inconsistent with any of the most precisely known physical facts.
This is facile and untrue. It shows a lack of understanding of how the universe works at a fundamental level.
Ill formed is anther way of saying it's the wrong question.
But here your fallacy is black-or-white.
The humanity is obsessed with humanized whatever when we don't have to. For me a creator is not necessarily pictured. It could be whatever you believe... If I don't believe in anything there is not a creator at all...
I think flukes don't exist. It is just a reference to whatever happens and we cannot explain the cause.
From this we can infer that if we consider "luck" to be something real, then it must have a real cause, and this is "chance".
God has been equated with chance (re Marcus du Sautoy/mathematician). The Greeks had a goddess of luck (Fortuna). However the Greeks never, to my knowledge, equated Fortuna to a creator deity. Why is that? If the link between chance and creation is as obvious as you say it is (god = personification of fluke), why didn't the Greeks make the connection?
To clarify, creation requires a cause and chance can't be a cause (it isn't physical, it's a concept) and while I'm not certain whether whatever the actual cause of the unverse should be called god and worshipped, I don't think chance is adequately explanatory; chance in this case is merely descriptive.
Quoting T Clark
Are you saying atheists are making facile and untrue statements? Well, go on then, edify us/them as to the true state of affairs.
Quoting Banno
So I'm asking the wrong question, eh mate? Do you mean to say that it's nonsensical/incoherent to inquire into a cause for the universe? How so?
As for black-and-white fallacies, what, pray tell, are the other alternatives to god (creator) and chance in re how the universe came to be?
Please read my reply to 180 Proof.
I like 180 Proof's stance on the issue - stick to the facts, reject all claims inconsistent with the facts, speculate at your own risk! Construct a weltanschauung as free of woo-woo as possible. Alas, easier said than done!
It's difficult, mi amigo, only to the degree one lacks scientific and historical literacies, applied numeracy, intellectual integrity (i.e. humility to admit "I/we don't know") and, last but not least (as per Einstein), imagination. :fire:
:cool:
No, I'm saying that atheists in general would not say that because it's not true and shows a lack of understanding of how the universe works.
As an atheist, my answer would be 'I don't know' and then I would give my credence level for each currently popular posit such as:
god - 0.00000001% credence
Big bang singularity - very high credence but I don't understand what a singularity is.
Cyclical singularity states - high credence but I don't understand what a singularity is.
Interacting inter-dimensional branes which create singularities when they collide - respectable credence but I don't understand what a brane or a singularity is.
The idea of cause as being chance would imply no direct line of action and consequences. It is questionable whether the idea of chance is more a reflection of theism or atheism because some theists have believed in predestination and some atheists have maintained materialistic determinism.
Darwin's idea of natural selection in itself is not random entirely because the survival of the fittest is like an inherent biological imperative within nature. And, in connection with God, Darwin was not necessarily an atheist even though his ideas may have influenced others to become atheist.
It is hard to know how to see the specific roots of causation. Aristotle saw God as the first mover. However, it would also be possible to ask what caused God to exist in the first place? To some extent it may come down to whether mind or matter are primary. Many Eastern thinkers, especially the Buddhists, see causality a little differently because they don't see the material as being the primary force, even though they don't believe in a specific deity. In Hinduism and Buddhism there is the idea of karma, which is fairly complex involving both inner and outer sources of causation, although the idea is, 'As you sow, so shall you reap' which would imply chain reactions as opposed to chance.
Ok, does that mean you concur (with what I said)? Why?
"I don't know" is a legit answer. @Harry Hindu once edified me as to what probability actually is - (the mathematics of) ignorance
Yup, theism and atheism converge (but also diverge) when it comes to determinism. :up:
Genetic mutations are random, at the very least probabilistic, to the extent the correlation between them and mutagen exposure < 1. Someone (@jgill ?) could shed more light on the matter.
Karma, an intriguing concept.
Good luck to those who insist our whole realities are a fluke, less than nothing.
I shouldn't be against the ropes in proposing fucking life isn't a fluke.
There is no evidence that the origins of life, had a source with intent.
There is no evidence from big bang theory, that any event in this universe was intended, before life started, or when life started. Intent only began after creatures who could be labelled 'alive,' started.
The characteristics of living things are: Movement, respiration, sense, growth, reproduction, energy and nutrition. You need to have all of them to be considered alive.
Only living things demonstrate intent.
There is no evidence of intent in any origin of the universe story proposed by science.
Only theism proposes a source of intent in the form of god proposals and there is no evidence that any god posit has an actual existent. Theism simply fails to convince anyone who employs rational faculty, in my opinion.
Chance/happenstance exists within this universe. But we just don't know if there is any point in asking a 'why' question about the origin of the universe. We may get closer to answering the 'how' and 'when' questions but 'why' and 'where' may never be known, but, the likelihood that we will probably always try to answer such a 'why' question, may have a deeper meaning than we currently understand.
:up: You have a way with words, my friend.
My pet philomathosophy notion is infinite chains of causations having first causes. Beyond that, at each link the chain is joined or influenced by neighboring chains. As for chance being a first cause in any such complex of chains, it depends upon your mathematical model, like it does in quantum theory. More later perhaps, when I've thought this out better. (not easy at my age) :cool:
:100: :fire:
I think 180 cut to the heart of it; asking what caused the creation, beginning, or origin of the universe when we have not actually established that there ever was a creation, beginning, or origin of the universe is putting the cart before the horse (all we know with any confidence is that the universe was in an extremely hot and dense state some 13.8 billion years ago- what, if anything, preceded that is not known or understood).
And of course its fun to speculate and imagine, beyond what can currently be established, just so long as we're clear that's what we're doing
No, that's not what i claimed.
Quoting Agent Smith
Evolution.
It is an error to think evolution involves chance.
Evolution: A Game of Chance
Good article.
The emphasis on chance comes about when one tries explaining that evolution is not teleological. That gets twisted to the idea that evolution is nothing but chance.
:up:
Quoting busycuttingcrap
:up:
So, you can predict evolution's selection pressure parameters and the mutagen-mutation correlation is +1? Can you explain ... please?
Quoting busycuttingcrap
:up: The point is I've heard people say the universe coming into existence is a fluke and that is as much of an explanation as saying the Putin was born by chance; no, Putin was born because his mom and dad made love.
Do you have an argument? I would like to hear it, danke.
To reiterate, Putin's mom and dad met by chance, but the cause of his existence was mom + dad (in bed). @Jack Cummins, predestination)
I'm not trying to surreptitiously push for theism (@Gnomon); it's just that chance simply can't be a cause (read my reply to neospectraltoast and busycuttingcrap).
@jgill Thanks for the link. What do you make of my Putin example. Does it capture the role of chance in evolution and how it isn't a cause?
Quoting Banno
That's what I've been trying to say all along. WTF?
Yeah, alright,
Quoting Banno
was too strong; should have been more like "It is an error to think evolution is nothing but chance".
Your argument about Putin's mother and father in bed is part of the idea of predestination. With the act of reproduction it involves the genetic elements and how this comes into play in the creation of a unique biological being. However, it goes way beyond this, with the circumstances in which they met.
When two people come into a relationship it involves the chance aspects of them meeting. For example, I know people who have met a partner in some unusual place, like a launderette or a couple I know met when the girl was running and the boy came to her rescue. So, it can include the unlikely aspects of life and probability.
On an experiential level I sometimes find that what happens goes beyond the scope of probability. For example, I often find that I get stuck in situations in which whatever I do I land up in the same predicament. I am not saying that there is no possible movement ever but when people have repeated experiences of a similar nature it can challenge the idea of chance and randomness. Nevertheless, it could be that the subconscious plays a role in the process and, in this way, intention in its deepest sense may have some role in the nature of will and chance in human consciousness in our lives, and it may be a bit different in nature and physics.
:grin: The article is quite clear - genetic mutations are random. However mutations have specific causes - mutagens. Chance is not the cause of mutations (the existence of the universe).
On a different note, selection pressures are random; can you predict what the next selection pressure for life on earth will be? If you can't, evolution is all chance.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz1n0RHwLqA
Here's a video on simple versus complex and its relationship with order versus chaos.
:up: I agree. Consider the following then. Take a die, any die (do you play Ludo?), and roll it n times (don't waste yer time actually doing it of course; plenty of math videos out there where people perform this experiment + your time is too precious ta waste on silly stuff like this :smile: )
Record the numbers that show up. As n increases, the experimental probability (the frequency of the numbers that you actually get) will approach the theoretical probability (the predicted frequency under the assumption that the die is behaving randomly). Rolling a die is random for all intents and purposes is the conclusion.
However, the cause of the die turning up a 2 or a 6 or 6 or any other number consists of the force you apply on the die, the roughness of the table, etc.
Chance describes behavior, is not the cause of a phenomenon/object.
Muchas gracias.
Enjoyed the vid. Sean Carroll, one of my favorite celeb physicists.
I guess, in the context of the video, I'm asking what was the cause of the low entropy state of the Big Bang + what triggered the low entropy [math]\to[/math] high entropy movement?
There's a good reason we have conflicting physics, a good reason for principles of uncertainty: because the word most like what reality is is fantasy.
It makes sense for the universe to make no semantic sense, but it'll unfortunately be five hundred years before we figure that out.
With regard to the idea of predestination, it has probably developed differently in various philosophy contexts. However, as far as I understand in the Judaeo-Christian tradition it often was in relation to the idea of sin, salvation and of the afterlife. It was based on the assumption that God, as designer, crafted each person and had a role in being responsible for the individuals.
This led to the question as to whether God was accountable for whether human beings could overcome sin. This moved onto the complex issue as to whether human beings were destined to enternal life in hell or heaven. It raised a lot of issues about the nature of evil and most thinking about chance and destiny. It is so different from the way most people think of the issues today, based on the knowledge of science. Beyond the issues of physics, which led to Einstein's query, 'Does God play dice?' the dynamics of philosophy have altered so much.
Quantum physics has looked at the issue from so many different angles. Einstein's ideas about the existence of God were ambiguous, and some physicists like Stephen Hawking have come from a materialist angle whereas others like Paul Davies and David Bohm have challenged materialistic determinism. The main difference with quantum theory is that so many questions have arisen. There is Heisenberg's emphasis on the uncertainty principle and so many theories, including chaos theory, which suggests some underlying order within the background of chaos and unpredictability.
One overriding understanding emerging is the systems point of view. This may involve perception of the various aspects of the issue of chance in the natural order and in human life, including free choice. In particular, in thinking about human nature and behaviour, the bio-psychosocial approach may be important. This involves thinking about the basic aspects of biology, including genetics as well as the various aspects of psychological development, including cultural and factors in social life. This is such a big contrast with the Christian notion of predestination which relied on a belief in the source and God, as a deity and creator, behind the scenes of nature and life.
I'm not ruling out chance in phenomena, I just don't think it can be a cause.
Yes, there is probably a link between causality and the issue of chance. However, to see chance as a cause is probably missing many other aspects, and it is about the many variables. It may be like if it is a strong windy day and a tree blows down and kills a person it is not possible to attribute the death to the wind or the tree alone because it is the interaction between the two and that a person was in the vicinity.
I think that the wind has just thrown the thread into the lounge as an invisible hand of destiny somehow!
What? Me thread has been moved to the lounge? How depressing!
We aren't making any progress Jack - you seem to concur with my views, more or less that is.
What do you think The Lounge is Jack? :smile:
I suppose we should take it all with a sense of humour as it is possible to think so hard about all these issues. Threads start and fade and if we agonise over them we won't do ourselves any good. So it may be best to take it in the strongest philosophy stride, as a mixture of chance and manifest destiny.
I don't consider myself destiny material mon ami! A person who has a destiny is a great person and no, I'm not an ape. :cool:
I suppose it is also worth considering what both the concepts of chance and destiny mean, because at times they are used in a rather vague way, almost as if they are opposites. To some extent I see the term chance as conjuring up a lack of direction and purpose. Destiny may be about some fixed end, but they may not be opposites entirely. There is starting points and ends, which may be where the concept of causation comes in. It could be asked if causes and ends are in a straightforward linear process or to what extent the goal is inherent in the understanding of the causal process?
:ok: