Maybe here is where your confusion arises, not only was Aristotle wrong, Newtonian Mechanics was wrong too : )
Why do you say "Cause and effect only provides a circular argument?" Please explain.
I will try another explanation. Everything has a 'cause', therefore there is a first 'cause'.
Newtonian cause and effect "breaks down" at the quantum level. His theory demands all causes be local.
Hmm, kind of correct. Newton and 'cause and effect' are wrong. Newton did demand instantaneous action at a distance though. I am mystified by your continued reliance on Aristotle and Newton.
So to your question, "does the observer 'cause' the results" in the double-slit experiment by choosing what he wants to observe — i.e., particle or wave? Certainly he can determine (cause) which he "sees" if he knows the proper experimental set up (i.e., the detectors). But did he "cause" the particle or wave? No, I don't think so. They were already there, as complementary descriptions of this mysterious thing called "matter." The observer is just bringing one of the descriptions into focus, as it were: He knows he can't "see" both at once, so he has to choose. But it seems to me nothing new is created here.
The collapse of the wavefunction creates a new state. Something new is certainly created, but there is no cause, that is the point.
I don't see Aristotle's four causes as essentially "religious." Rather they are epistemic and logical.
Philosophy in other words, they most certainly are that : ) Religion is mostly philosophy too.
Elsewhere you've written that Aristotle has been "discredited." By whom? You???
Science. Logic on its own doesn't create truth. Aristotle's basic assumptions were wrong. It is too bad that Aristotle never tested any of his assumptions. Have you read "The Black Swan" I highly recommend it.
That fact is, if anything, he's getting more attention from physicists and mathematicians working on theoretical biology issues these days.... People who have come to realize that they need to speak of final cause.
Puhleeaze, there is no first cause, final cause, intermediate cause, uncaused cause, uncaused uncaused cause, etc. etc. It is pretty funny if you think about it : )
Therefore; LeGrande does not exist.
I'm from Missouri.
Which obviates the question: If the "first cause" is "first," then how can it have an antecedent cause?
But as noted elsewhere, that is a problem for cosmology (and theology), not for the physical sciences per se.
I just LOVE it when the waves collapse!
Surf is COOL!
'specially the blue-green colored stuff in Cancun!