Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pixadv.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!wjh12!pixel!pixadv!cmm From: cmm@pixadv.UUCP (cmm) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.physics Subject: Re: Now and Then - (nf) Message-ID: <40@pixadv.UUCP> Date: Tue, 21-Aug-84 11:30:12 EDT Article-I.D.: pixadv.40 Posted: Tue Aug 21 11:30:12 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 22-Aug-84 05:58:30 EDT References: <60@ism780b.UUCP> Organization: Pixel Computer Inc., Wilmington, Mass. Lines: 33 This is extracted from net.philosophy. >>Or, putting it slightly differently, the traditional view of >>cause-and-effect is that one action causes another action; >>This avoids the >>endless backward causal chain problem (and the "prime mover"). >How so? To avoid the "prime mover" I would think requires accepting that the >causal chain extends infinitely into the past, or accepting the universe's >right to behave capriciously, and substitute "prime mover" with >"prime spontaneous event". Causative behavior due to inherent nature >plus a finite causal chain seems to me to imply a first cause. My question: Is it unreasonable to presume a "prime spontaneous event"? Doesn't quantum mechanics allow for "spontaneous" movements at the particle level? (Spontaneous here meaning that the particle is found to be in a very improbable location.) Can these spontaneous particle translations not have an impact on other particles, resulting in an amplified result, eventually changing something at the macroscopic level? My second question: Just how incorrect is my interpretation of quantum mechanics? -- ____________________________________________________________________________ cmm (carl m mikkelsen) | (617)657-8720x2310 Pixel Computer Incorporated | 260 Fordham Road | {allegra|ihnp4|cbosgd|ima|genrad|amd|harvard}\ Wilmington, Ma. 01887 | !wjh12!pixel!pixadv!cmm