Cause, Effect & Quantum Observers

The problem with the "everything must have a cause" argument is that it is nonsensical; if so, then we have infinite regress. There is no haven in having "random" quantum fluctuations generating a universe as first cause, because it begs the question of what existed that could produce such random fluctuations, and where it came from. The only logical relief from infinite regress is a cause that was not itself caused, a creator that was not created. Since the physical world exists as a continuance of cause and effect, and evidence supports that it had an origination point, we can conclude that the physical universe was caused by something outside of it. It didn't cause itself; it didn't come from nothing; those are logical absurdities. The only conclusion that is not a logical absurdity is that something outside of or beyond the physical realm caused it - set it in motion.

There is nothing in logic that prevents this scenario, and logic demands this very conclusion from the evidence at hand. Also, logic demands that this creative force not be subject to causation, or else we ultimately face the same problem of infinite regress. Fortunately, since we only know the physical realm to be a habitat of cause and effect, we don't have to assume that anything beyond it is bound by that principle.

Further, what is the experiential and evidenced nature of cause and effect in our realm? It seems that nature is mechanistic and predictable; even animals are largely mechanistic and predictable; many, if not humans are mechanistic and predictable - but many other humans are innovative, surprising, inventive, creative. Their capacity to generate that which nature otherwise cannot is easily noticed by how easy it is to differentiate product of human invention from that of any other natural force or creature on the planet.

Also, our own experimentation with subatomic phenomena indicates that until a conscious observer is attending a measurement, the states of those phenomena remain indeterminant. This is known as the "observer collapse" effect. It has also been shown in delayed choice experiments that the observer can change history by delaying, then changing the method of their measurement. If cause and effect are true, how is it that the observer is determining what it observes in the first place? If our free will intentions are caused by what we experience, how is it that our conscious presence, our intentional structure of the experiment, is determining the structure of what we are experiencing? Second, if we are the result of a time-linear cause and effect, how is it that we can change history via delayed-choice experiments?

The problem with the cause and effect argument is not understanding the cause of cause and effect; the system of apparent time-linear cause and effect must itself be caused by something more fundamental than cause and effect itself; cause and effect is generated by the presence of a conscioius observer; until then, quantum states are in a state of potential, not actuality. We're not talking about subatomic billiard balls that were initially struck at the big bang and all we are witnessing now is how they bounce around; that's atomism. Subatomic phenomena do not behave that way; the evidence shows they are indeterminant until observed; this makes deliberate, conscious observation the only true cause at the existential substrate level.

What appears to us to be cause and effect is simply an arranged cause and effect orchestrated by the method, nature, or perspective of the observing consciousness. If the location and properties of the substrate of our physical existence are not set until observed, then how can we argue that it is those locations and states that cause us to observe them in the first place? This is a logical absurdity. So, not only is materialist (non-free-will) cause and effect logically absurd due to infinite regress, the evidence contradicts it; we have an apparent origin point for the cause and effect properties of our universe in the big bang, and observation of the substrate of our existence - subatomic phenomena - shows that it doesn't have set locations or properties until observed; if we are essentially caused entities, what is causing us if the basic, fundamental elements of our existence don't even have set properties or locations until we observe them?

The evidence and necessary logic clearly indicates that, instead of a bottom-up, linear causation sequence, we must live in a top down, non-linear causation system, where "cause and effect" sequences that we observe are generated by the presence of conscious observers. In other words, if there was no conscious observer around to collapse any quantum potential locations into actualized states, then there could never be a big bang, because no particular state of the original quantum phenomena cold have been actualized from the potential. From a June 1, 2002 article in Discover Magazine about this:

Eminent physicist John Wheeler says he has only enough time left to work on one idea: that human consciousness shapes not only the present but the past as well.

The argument that "free will" doesn't exist is incoherent in a third way; if one doesn't have true free will as a capacity to deliberately discern true statments, then one has no basis from which to argue. Meaningful arguments require the capacity to make deliberate, independent judgements of truth values. If one is simply "programmed" by accumultaions of prior causation, then they must do, and must say, and must believe whatever they do, say and believe whether it is true or not, and will say it is true and believe it is true whether or not it is true, including believing that utter nonsense is true.

Evidence and logic requires that idealistic free will exists. If not, how are scientists involved in quantum observations "deciding" how to arrange their experiments, if the substrate underneath the state of our own brains and bodies is of indeterminant properties until observed and measured? What is "causing" anything to happen when nothing is in any actual state until an observer is present?

However, if an entity is nothing more than a programmed biological automoton - i.e., a non-free will system that is being "collapsed" into a state by some other entity with free will - then they are capable of believing and saying all sorts of irrational nonsense, which is why I don't think that all human beings have free will; I think a substantial portion of humans are simply non-free-will phenomena collapsed into their rather nonsensical state by actual observer, still arguing atomist principles that the big bang was the striking of a cosmic cue-ball and that everything else is just the effect of molecules and particles bumping around afterward, when that view has long since been discredited by the evidence and quantum theory.