Is cause and effect random?

Answer 1

If every observed instance of A has been followed by an instance of B, we have naturally to assume that in some manner A causes B. There is no other way to live.

But in a theoretical sense, might the notion of cause and effect not be a gigantic post hoc fallacy? Even after a billion examples of B invariably following A, can we be thoroughly certain that the billion and first example of A won't, however unlikely this is, break the pattern? And if it does, wouldn't that make A and B independent events, coincidentally linked?

As I said, this is not a practical manner of thinking, but if such a thing occurs, "cause and effect," if it exists at all, would be only a random probability. For example, the proposition that all living things die -- or that life causes death -- is in theory deniable so long as there is a living thing.

Answer 2

This is a tough subject, wikipedia states "The fact that no experiment is entirely replicable questions some core assumptions in science."

There is always an inescapable random component to everything and sometimes it makes a huge difference. I\For example, if dinosaurs were made extinct by a meteor, what caused the meteor to hit the earth? The most tiny, trivial cause could have nudged the meteor. This is the butterfly effect. The fact that on the average meteors miss the earth is irrelevant if just one hits. So averages don't mean anything and therefore statistics are meaningless.

Answer 3

Sometimes and Sometimes not. Often we do things even though we know in advance what the effects of our decisions will be. When we weigh the pros and cons of an action or a decision, we can almost always accurately guess what will happen as a result. The fact that we sometimes have a choice about what happens makes randomness a less accurate word of description in many cases.

Answer 4

No. That's why they call it cause and effect. It's a series of events. Not random.

Answer 5

That will depend if you are talking about physics or philosophy.

In physics even if the cause is random, the effect wont be.

Answer 6

I don't believe people are grasping your question.
I think you are asking if the PROCESS of cause and effect came about randomly?
As for the answer I have no idea.
It certainly seems random that it exists but I dont know what other alternative there could be.

Answer 7

by definition, no. Cause -> Effect. Now, you can certainly have causes and effects that are unrelated to each other, but that's a whole different thing.

Answer 8

three mins into looking the scoop on nine/eleven I checked out my fellow landscapers and stated "that is Al Quaeda and Osama bi Laden". They checked out me like I had three heads. I learn mainstream newspapers and watched constant nightly information.The Cole was once no shock. Pakistan's duplicitous conduct is like the opposite shoe shedding, eventually and Iran getting the bomb and as a rule getting bombed by means of Israel practically inevitable. Just paying awareness does not make you a conspirator. Oh and I'm Episcopalian.

Answer 9

Never, it's very specific. That's why it is cause & effect.

Answer 10

no?
otherwise it wouldn't be cause and effect. if it was random, we wouldn't know the cause.