For 'case' in philosophy it means what characterizes either an event that occurs without a defined and identifiable cause, thus contradicting each deterministic theory that assigns to each event a specific cause; or a situation happened for reasons that certainly are present but are unknown or do not have a cause-effect deterministic sequence, such as to allow their identification and the possibility to discover the effects.

The discussion of Aristotelian ‘cause’ has focused on the definition of ‘causa prima’ that through the cosmological demonstration was identified with God.

In anthropology it is customary to make a clear distinction between the concept of "causa  prima", identified with pantheism or monotheism and “cause seconde", the physical ones, empirically verifiable in their chains of space and time.

'Case' has relevance also in the statistical analysis when, considering an event, due to the high presence of causes that have determined it, or in the impossibility to go back to the knowledge of the first element that has caused it, says it is impossible to predict the effects of that single phenomenon by declaring only its statistical probability, referring to a set of similar phenomena in which the 'case' is included.

The meaning of the term "determinism" has been subject to various interpretations. Some believe that determinism and free will are mutually exclusive and that the consequence of determinism would be that free will is an illusion; others, instead, believe that the two ideas can coexist. Much of the disputes stems also from the fact that even the definition of free will, such as that of determinism, is not unique.

Some argue that free will is referring to the metaphysical truth of acting independently, while others define it as the perception of being an actor (in the etymological sense) that humans have when they act. For example, David Hume argued that it is possible that human beings can not form freely (regardless of context) their own desires and beliefs, but the only "freedom" is connected with the possibility of translating desires and beliefs into voluntary actions.

A key part of the debate "free will versus determinism" is the problem of ‘causa prima’ we have mentioned before.

But to what extent holds the causal interpretation of reality? If taken to the extreme consequences,  it comes to a conflict with free will. Each of us is perceived, as an individual, free  of self-determination within certain limits. But if the world follows the laws purely causal, assuming to know the laws that govern the time evolution of the world and the conditions at a given time (the initial conditions) we will be able to predict the future of the world ... including ourselves. This made think the most vocal proponents of deterministic interpretation of reality that our self-determination is actually only apparent and illusory contrary to what we seem to perceive.

If at first moment you could imagine the universe as a consequential system determined, unique and thus predictable, after the indetermination is not epistemologically possible to take it for granted, but it is necessary to take into account that basic phenomena of reality can be described only in probabilistic terms, and not so much for an objective and insurmountable difficulties in the calculation, but for an intrinsic impossibility of knowing, accurately and simultaneously, both the amount of motion and the position of a given sub-atomic particle. Given that the entire universe is composed of such particles and therefore all the events and phenomena are affected, the principle of indetermination is projected over the entire range of human knowledge with strong consequences on the philosophical and theoretical level.

A further and even more serious blow to the determinism derived from the discovery of chaos theory in the second half of the twentieth century. With the emergence of the concept of dependence on initial conditions present in the majority of physical phenomena, the classical determinism is necessarily having to be replaced by a conception in which the state of many phenomena in nature can only be expressed in probabilistic terms, maintaining in many cases, but not always, a certain degree of regularity. This raises the concept of deterministic chaos, so it is still possible to maintain a certain degree of anticipation in physical models, but it becomes impossible to transform the prediction in certainty, and this for the intrinsically non-linear behavior of the system itself.

The experiments on the particles reveal to a certain extent the non-existence of a causal principle and an almost complete freedom of the statistical results of the experiments. All that in the sense that 100 electrons launched all with the same direction and the same speed will go to 100 different places in a different way than a billiard ball that will end up in the same hole all 100 times (assuming that we are precise directing it). And our idea of predicting the evolution of the system, preparing it in a certain state? We know that at given premises temporally follow certain results, and the observation that chronologically necessarily always the case leads us to think that there is a link. Common sense leads us in this direction for the facts of everyday life. This no longer seems true for the fine structure of reality, particle physics, field of investigation of Quantum Mechanics.

So where is the catch, where we go wrong: at large dimensions we know that works the analysis cause - effect, and where does it go when we deal with the size of the electron and we are met with the Heisenberg indeterminism that makes us change each time the result of the experiment? Must we give up the causality? It does not have worth anymore and why?

The causality is not the only principle to which reality responds, which in its essence reveals a level of a-causal freedom that we are not prepared to deal with our methods of analysis and that we attribute to chance.

Furthermore, causality is a phenomenon that has to do with regularity and which can not be in agreement with the presence of a conscious subject which - as we saw - is impossible to model in deterministic/causal terms. Given that we think in terms only causal, that's why in our culture we separate the exact from the human sciences. The presence of the conscious subject prevents and / or disturbs the analysis of the causal / deterministic phenomena, preventing proper course of predicting the behavior or the temporal evolution of a system.

The causal analysis has no existence in reality; it originates in the way we look at it, but does not exhaust the analysis of reality. This tells the Quantum Mechanics. We need, seek a regularity in the phenomena and then we set our analysis in causal terms, but it is incorrect to assume that causality is subject to study, in Nature.

For 'case' in philosophy it means what characterizes either an event that occurs without a defined and identifiable cause, thus contradicting each deterministic theory that assigns to each event a specific cause; or a situation happened for reasons that certainly are present but are unknown or do not have a cause-effect deterministic sequence, such as to allow their identification and the possibility to discover the effects.

The discussion of Aristotelian ‘cause’ has focused on the definition of ‘causa prima’ that through the cosmological demonstration was identified with God.

In anthropology it is customary to make a clear distinction between the concept of "causa  prima", identified with pantheism or monotheism and “cause seconde", the physical ones, empirically verifiable in their chains of space and time.

'Case' has relevance also in the statistical analysis when, considering an event, due to the high presence of causes that have determined it, or in the impossibility to go back to the knowledge of the first element that has caused it, says it is impossible to predict the effects of that single phenomenon by declaring only its statistical probability, referring to a set of similar phenomena in which the 'case' is included.

The meaning of the term "determinism" has been subject to various interpretations. Some believe that determinism and free will are mutually exclusive and that the consequence of determinism would be that free will is an illusion; others, instead, believe that the two ideas can coexist. Much of the disputes stems also from the fact that even the definition of free will, such as that of determinism, is not unique.

Some argue that free will is referring to the metaphysical truth of acting independently, while others define it as the perception of being an actor (in the etymological sense) that humans have when they act. For example, David Hume argued that it is possible that human beings can not form freely (regardless of context) their own desires and beliefs, but the only "freedom" is connected with the possibility of translating desires and beliefs into voluntary actions.

A key part of the debate "free will versus determinism" is the problem of ‘causa prima’ we have mentioned before.

But to what extent holds the causal interpretation of reality? If taken to the extreme consequences,  it comes to a conflict with free will. Each of us is perceived, as an individual, free  of self-determination within certain limits. But if the world follows the laws purely causal, assuming to know the laws that govern the time evolution of the world and the conditions at a given time (the initial conditions) we will be able to predict the future of the world ... including ourselves. This made think the most vocal proponents of deterministic interpretation of reality that our self-determination is actually only apparent and illusory contrary to what we seem to perceive.

If at first moment you could imagine the universe as a consequential system determined, unique and thus predictable, after the indetermination is not epistemologically possible to take it for granted, but it is necessary to take into account that basic phenomena of reality can be described only in probabilistic terms, and not so much for an objective and insurmountable difficulties in the calculation, but for an intrinsic impossibility of knowing, accurately and simultaneously, both the amount of motion and the position of a given sub-atomic particle. Given that the entire universe is composed of such particles and therefore all the events and phenomena are affected, the principle of indetermination is projected over the entire range of human knowledge with strong consequences on the philosophical and theoretical level.

A further and even more serious blow to the determinism derived from the discovery of chaos theory in the second half of the twentieth century. With the emergence of the concept of dependence on initial conditions present in the majority of physical phenomena, the classical determinism is necessarily having to be replaced by a conception in which the state of many phenomena in nature can only be expressed in probabilistic terms, maintaining in many cases, but not always, a certain degree of regularity. This raises the concept of deterministic chaos, so it is still possible to maintain a certain degree of anticipation in physical models, but it becomes impossible to transform the prediction in certainty, and this for the intrinsically non-linear behavior of the system itself.

The experiments on the particles reveal to a certain extent the non-existence of a causal principle and an almost complete freedom of the statistical results of the experiments. All that in the sense that 100 electrons launched all with the same direction and the same speed will go to 100 different places in a different way than a billiard ball that will end up in the same hole all 100 times (assuming that we are precise directing it). And our idea of predicting the evolution of the system, preparing it in a certain state? We know that at given premises temporally follow certain results, and the observation that chronologically necessarily always the case leads us to think that there is a link. Common sense leads us in this direction for the facts of everyday life. This no longer seems true for the fine structure of reality, particle physics, field of investigation of Quantum Mechanics.

So where is the catch, where we go wrong: at large dimensions we know that works the analysis cause - effect, and where does it go when we deal with the size of the electron and we are met with the Heisenberg indeterminism that makes us change each time the result of the experiment? Must we give up the causality? It does not have worth anymore and why?

The causality is not the only principle to which reality responds, which in its essence reveals a level of a-causal freedom that we are not prepared to deal with our methods of analysis and that we attribute to chance.

Furthermore, causality is a phenomenon that has to do with regularity and which can not be in agreement with the presence of a conscious subject which - as we saw - is impossible to model in deterministic/causal terms. Given that we think in terms only causal, that's why in our culture we separate the exact from the human sciences. The presence of the conscious subject prevents and / or disturbs the analysis of the causal / deterministic phenomena, preventing proper course of predicting the behavior or the temporal evolution of a system.

The causal analysis has no existence in reality; it originates in the way we look at it, but does not exhaust the analysis of reality. This tells the Quantum Mechanics. We need, seek a regularity in the phenomena and then we set our analysis in causal terms, but it is incorrect to assume that causality is subject to study, in Nature.