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