Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

On randomness

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 1:21:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Something that lacks an explanation fails to meet even the most basic conditions of existence. When we say that something exists, we are saying that it is absolutely included in the definition of reality - its existence is *real*, such that its existence is actually *selected for* and its non-existence is *selected against*. If something were without an explanation, it would not be implicated within the explanatory structure of reality and thus its inclusion would not be "real" in the sense that existence requires. The fact its non-existence has been ruled out means it is explicable i.e., that its existence *follows* given the structure of reality. What is known as "sufficient cause" amounts to something's non-existence being absolutely ruled out by explanatory structure. Existence is synonymous with "relevant to reality" which means it must be implicated within reality's structure to the extent that it really *is relevant*.

When someone says that something *exists* yet is *random*, know that they are offering a contradiction in terms.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2015 3:07:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Everything that exists, by virtue of having the quality (or at least the state) of "existence", is, by definition, necessary. If existents were unnecessary, they would bear no resemblance to existents, since they could not exist and still be existents.

If everything is necessarily (and it is), then everything has a cause - its nature.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 4:10:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/26/2015 3:07:58 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Everything that exists, by virtue of having the quality (or at least the state) of "existence", is, by definition, necessary. If existents were unnecessary, they would bear no resemblance to existents, since they could not exist and still be existents.

If everything is necessarily (and it is), then everything has a cause - its nature.

This is not what it means for something to be necessary; you can only go from 'it is necessary that...' to 'it is the case that...' but not vice versa. If something is necessary it could not possibly be not the case, e.g. it is the case that I exist but it is not necessary, since there is no logical contradiction in saying 'it is possible that my parents never met'.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 4:25:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 4:10:08 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/26/2015 3:07:58 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Everything that exists, by virtue of having the quality (or at least the state) of "existence", is, by definition, necessary. If existents were unnecessary, they would bear no resemblance to existents, since they could not exist and still be existents.

If everything is necessarily (and it is), then everything has a cause - its nature.

This is not what it means for something to be necessary; you can only go from 'it is necessary that...' to 'it is the case that...' but not vice versa. If something is necessary it could not possibly be not the case, e.g. it is the case that I exist but it is not necessary, since there is no logical contradiction in saying 'it is possible that my parents never met'.

There's definitely a contradiction in saying that it was possible for you not to exist, given that the chain of events leading to your existence were caused by the nature of the entities which caused them. In order for you not to exist, something fundamental about either what exists (I.e. What existents exist, and, since everything is caused, you would have to change the nature of the "prime mover") or the fundamental nature of causality. Both are absurd.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 4:26:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/26/2015 1:21:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Something that lacks an explanation fails to meet even the most basic conditions of existence. When we say that something exists, we are saying that it is absolutely included in the definition of reality - its existence is *real*, such that its existence is actually *selected for* and its non-existence is *selected against*. If something were without an explanation, it would not be implicated within the explanatory structure of reality and thus its inclusion would not be "real" in the sense that existence requires. The fact its non-existence has been ruled out means it is explicable i.e., that its existence *follows* given the structure of reality. What is known as "sufficient cause" amounts to something's non-existence being absolutely ruled out by explanatory structure. Existence is synonymous with "relevant to reality" which means it must be implicated within reality's structure to the extent that it really *is relevant*.

When someone says that something *exists* yet is *random*, know that they are offering a contradiction in terms.

I don't think anyone talks about 'random existence', if anything people talk about processes, that are random, leading to the existence of something. Whether or not those processes are really random is another question.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 4:34:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 4:25:49 PM, bossyburrito wrote:

There's definitely a contradiction in saying that it was possible for you not to exist, given that the chain of events leading to your existence were caused by the nature of the entities which caused them. In order for you not to exist, something fundamental about either what exists (I.e. What existents exist, and, since everything is caused, you would have to change the nature of the "prime mover") or the fundamental nature of causality. Both are absurd.

Not true. I can quite easily conceive of a world in which my parents never met each other; I cannot conceive of a world in which there are married bachelors or in which it is not the case that 2+2=4. The latter ones are necessary truths.

http://plato.stanford.edu...
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 6:38:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 4:34:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/27/2015 4:25:49 PM, bossyburrito wrote:

There's definitely a contradiction in saying that it was possible for you not to exist, given that the chain of events leading to your existence were caused by the nature of the entities which caused them. In order for you not to exist, something fundamental about either what exists (I.e. What existents exist, and, since everything is caused, you would have to change the nature of the "prime mover") or the fundamental nature of causality. Both are absurd.

Not true. I can quite easily conceive of a world in which my parents never met each other; I cannot conceive of a world in which there are married bachelors or in which it is not the case that 2+2=4. The latter ones are necessary truths.
All truths are tautological. Every entity in reality has an exact identity - A is always A.

Like I said, for your parents to not have met each other there would have to be something so fundamentally different about the universe and its laws that it would not resemble our own.

The causal chain from the "beginning" of the universe to your parents meeting is one that happened out of necessity, given that the entities involved in that causal chain could not have produced different results.

If 2 + 2 = 4 always holds true, for 2 + 2 to equal 5 in "some possible world" you would have to be equivocating. The same exact principle holds for ANY event of causation, and I really don't see why you're making a distinction between 2 + 2 = 4 and, say, atom A + atom B = result C.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

I know the theory. The theory is wrong.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 6:34:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
All truths are tautological. Every entity in reality has an exact identity - A is always A.

Water being H2O is not tautological.

Like I said, for your parents to not have met each other there would have to be something so fundamentally different about the universe and its laws that it would not resemble our own.

I agree that it would need some fundamental changes, but I think that it would still resemble our own. Consider this hypothetical: You have a balloon, you can either fill it with helium or the air you breath out, no matter what you do it will still be your balloon.

The causal chain from the "beginning" of the universe to your parents meeting is one that happened out of necessity, given that the entities involved in that causal chain could not have produced different results.

The same exact principle holds for ANY event of causation, and I really don't see why you're making a distinction between 2 + 2 = 4 and, say, atom A + atom B = result C.

I am not arguing that atom A + atom B might result in D, I am arguing that there was no A + B interacting in the first place. Lets say god (metaphorically speaking) made the big bang pass slightly different.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 12:38:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/26/2015 3:07:58 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Everything that exists, by virtue of having the quality (or at least the state) of "existence", is, by definition, necessary. If existents were unnecessary, they would bear no resemblance to existents, since they could not exist and still be existents.

If everything is necessarily (and it is), then everything has a cause - its nature.

That's not true. Inclusion in this reality i.e., the real reality, does not necessarily follow from something's definition. Definitions need not refer to anything which has been physically realized.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2015 10:58:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 6:34:48 AM, Fkkize wrote:
All truths are tautological. Every entity in reality has an exact identity - A is always A.

Water being H2O is not tautological.
Are you saying that water can be not-H2O without you equivocating?
Like I said, for your parents to not have met each other there would have to be something so fundamentally different about the universe and its laws that it would not resemble our own.

I agree that it would need some fundamental changes, but I think that it would still resemble our own. Consider this hypothetical: You have a balloon, you can either fill it with helium or the air you breath out, no matter what you do it will still be your balloon.
A world "resembling" our world but fundamentally different is arbitrary and, because of the constraints of existence (I.e. That which actually exists, I.e. Our world as it is now), cannot logically be conceived of. It doesn't matter if some parts of your hypothetical world are equivalent to the actual world - if they can only exist in a framework of a non-existent and non-possible world, those things themselves are impossible.

Imagine a square circle.
The causal chain from the "beginning" of the universe to your parents meeting is one that happened out of necessity, given that the entities involved in that causal chain could not have produced different results.

The same exact principle holds for ANY event of causation, and I really don't see why you're making a distinction between 2 + 2 = 4 and, say, atom A + atom B = result C.

I am not arguing that atom A + atom B might result in D, I am arguing that there was no A + B interacting in the first place. Lets say god (metaphorically speaking) made the big bang pass slightly different.

That's entirely the same as saying "imagine God made atom A + atom B result in D". You're changing the framework of reality, and, as such, you're not making intelligible statements.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2015 11:01:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 12:38:15 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/26/2015 3:07:58 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
Everything that exists, by virtue of having the quality (or at least the state) of "existence", is, by definition, necessary. If existents were unnecessary, they would bear no resemblance to existents, since they could not exist and still be existents.

If everything is necessarily (and it is), then everything has a cause - its nature.

That's not true. Inclusion in this reality i.e., the real reality, does not necessarily follow from something's definition.
I never said it did. Definitions follow and only make sense from and in reference to things that have the quality of being real.
Definitions need not refer to anything which has been physically realized.
Define the qualities of a square circle without saying "those qualities which are of a square circle".
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2015 11:27:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/30/2015 10:58:22 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Are you saying that water can be not-H2O without you equivocating?

"Consider two different possible worlds based on Putnam's Twin Earth thought experiment (Putnam 1972). In the first world, Earth, the clear potable stuff that fills lakes and streams and is habitually called "water" by English speakers is H2O. The second world, Twin Earth, is exactly the same except that the stuff that has these properties is the complex chemical kind, XYZ. If your commonsense understanding of "water" is governed by the proposed reference-fixing convention, it would lead you to identify different chemical substances as water depending on what your actual environment is like: if your actual environment is like Earth, then water is H2O; but if your actual environment is like Twin earth, then water is XYZ. If you assume that water is actually H2O, however, you will judge that water is essentially H2O in all counterfactual circumstances. And if you assume water is actually XYZ, then you'll judge water is essentially XYZ."(http://plato.stanford.edu...)

A world "resembling" our world but fundamentally different is arbitrary and, because of the constraints of existence (I.e. That which actually exists, I.e. Our world as it is now), cannot logically be conceived of. It doesn't matter if some parts of your hypothetical world are equivalent to the actual world - if they can only exist in a framework of a non-existent and non-possible world, those things themselves are impossible.

A possible world is a visualization of modality, it doesn't really exist.

That's entirely the same as saying "imagine God made atom A + atom B result in D". You're changing the framework of reality, and, as such, you're not making intelligible statements.

You roll a 2. Was it not possible that you could have rolled a 5?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 2:21:55 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 3/30/2015 11:27:15 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/30/2015 10:58:22 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Are you saying that water can be not-H2O without you equivocating?

"Consider two different possible worlds based on Putnam's Twin Earth thought experiment (Putnam 1972). In the first world, Earth, the clear potable stuff that fills lakes and streams and is habitually called "water" by English speakers is H2O. The second world, Twin Earth, is exactly the same except that the stuff that has these properties is the complex chemical kind, XYZ. If your commonsense understanding of "water" is governed by the proposed reference-fixing convention, it would lead you to identify different chemical substances as water depending on what your actual environment is like: if your actual environment is like Earth, then water is H2O; but if your actual environment is like Twin earth, then water is XYZ. If you assume that water is actually H2O, however, you will judge that water is essentially H2O in all counterfactual circumstances. And if you assume water is actually XYZ, then you'll judge water is essentially XYZ."(http://plato.stanford.edu...)
Water is that which we refer to when we say water - this is decidedly not the same as saying that what we refer to when we say water changes based on our referring to it. The object (the referent) when water is H20 is the same as when it is XYZ, because the referent is *not* the atomic structure of water, but something which both H20 and XYZ have in common.

Thus, no matter the environment and our habits, the referent of water will remain the same.

A world "resembling" our world but fundamentally different is arbitrary and, because of the constraints of existence (I.e. That which actually exists, I.e. Our world as it is now), cannot logically be conceived of. It doesn't matter if some parts of your hypothetical world are equivalent to the actual world - if they can only exist in a framework of a non-existent and non-possible world, those things themselves are impossible.

A possible world is a visualization of modality, it doesn't really exist.
It doesn't really exist *and it could never exist*. Modality is a myth. There is only tautology.
That's entirely the same as saying "imagine God made atom A + atom B result in D". You're changing the framework of reality, and, as such, you're not making intelligible statements.

You roll a 2. Was it not possible that you could have rolled a 5?

No.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Philosophy101
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 2:00:18 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 3/30/2015 11:27:15 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 3/30/2015 10:58:22 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Are you saying that water can be not-H2O without you equivocating?

"Consider two different possible worlds based on Putnam's Twin Earth thought experiment (Putnam 1972). In the first world, Earth, the clear potable stuff that fills lakes and streams and is habitually called "water" by English speakers is H2O. The second world, Twin Earth, is exactly the same except that the stuff that has these properties is the complex chemical kind, XYZ. If your commonsense understanding of "water" is governed by the proposed reference-fixing convention, it would lead you to identify different chemical substances as water depending on what your actual environment is like: if your actual environment is like Earth, then water is H2O; but if your actual environment is like Twin earth, then water is XYZ. If you assume that water is actually H2O, however, you will judge that water is essentially H2O in all counterfactual circumstances. And if you assume water is actually XYZ, then you'll judge water is essentially XYZ."(http://plato.stanford.edu...)


A world "resembling" our world but fundamentally different is arbitrary and, because of the constraints of existence (I.e. That which actually exists, I.e. Our world as it is now), cannot logically be conceived of. It doesn't matter if some parts of your hypothetical world are equivalent to the actual world - if they can only exist in a framework of a non-existent and non-possible world, those things themselves are impossible.

A possible world is a visualization of modality, it doesn't really exist.


That's entirely the same as saying "imagine God made atom A + atom B result in D". You're changing the framework of reality, and, as such, you're not making intelligible statements.

You roll a 2. Was it not possible that you could have rolled a 5?

You could not have rolled a 5 because you rolled a 2 it would be like asking if I could have went on that cruise when I didn't. God, I would have loved going on that cruise.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 5:46:36 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 3/30/2015 11:27:15 AM, Fkkize wrote:
You roll a 2. Was it not possible that you could have rolled a 5?

I think that depends on the assumptions one brings into the hypothetical re-roll.

There must have been many times playing ludo I rolled a 2 when I wanted a 5 and been disappointed, because I could have rolled a 5, but I didn't.

On the other hand if we imagine 'turning the clock back' so every atom is exactly as it was then (I would suppose) I would get a 2 again - I could never roll a 5 no matter how many clock reset I am allowed.

Note that there may even be signficance between 'Was it possible...' and 'Is it possible...'. I think one can say that it was possible a 5 was thrown, but it isn't possible now.

Also even 'throwing a die' is open to interpretation. A physical die isn't really random - it is deterministic and chaotic. So if we 'reset the clock' and recreate the exact conditions of the toss we will get the sae result - with a physical die. But perhaps we should be thinking in terms of a philosopher's die, a 'generator of perfectly random numbers between 1 and 6' which a real die only approximates to. Would such a device be subject to repeating if you reset the clock? There is no answer to that... you are free to assume either way.

There are probably many more tacit assumptions involved, but the point is that the answer to 'was it not possible to roll a 5?' depends on a raft of unspoken assumptions'.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 7:10:15 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Why is everyone replying to an over a year old post I have no intentions to revisit?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
keithprosser
Posts: 1,975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2016 7:32:34 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/3/2016 7:10:15 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Why is everyone replying to an over a year old post I have no intentions to revisit?

Same reason I reply to any post - I'm bored and lonely. :(
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,865
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 6:54:45 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/3/2016 7:32:34 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 11/3/2016 7:10:15 AM, Fkkize wrote:
Why is everyone replying to an over a year old post I have no intentions to revisit?

Same reason I reply to any post - I'm bored and lonely. :(
He revisited it to tell people he has no intention on revisiting it.....priceless.lol
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2016 3:18:06 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/26/2015 1:21:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Something that lacks an explanation fails to meet even the most basic conditions of existence. When we say that something exists, we are saying that it is absolutely included in the definition of reality - its existence is *real*, such that its existence is actually *selected for* and its non-existence is *selected against*. If something were without an explanation, it would not be implicated within the explanatory structure of reality and thus its inclusion would not be "real" in the sense that existence requires. The fact its non-existence has been ruled out means it is explicable i.e., that its existence *follows* given the structure of reality. What is known as "sufficient cause" amounts to something's non-existence being absolutely ruled out by explanatory structure. Existence is synonymous with "relevant to reality" which means it must be implicated within reality's structure to the extent that it really *is relevant*.

When someone says that something *exists* yet is *random*, know that they are offering a contradiction in terms.

Things are random *until* they exist. Randomness appears, if my intetpetation of the physics is correct, to be the essence of matter and energy. It exists as randomness and then pops into existence only when it is observed. Once matter is observed, it ceases to be random and becomes real. I'm not sure if this is what you were saying, but I don't think it's wrong to call real things 'random" when that is how they were created. If I roll dice, I will call the results "random" even though I have already observed the results.

Also, nothing in objective reality is absolute. We have no tool, as conscious beings, to determine absoluteness. We can know subjective absolutes, but not objective, real absolutes.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2016 12:36:10 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/18/2016 3:18:06 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/26/2015 1:21:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Something that lacks an explanation fails to meet even the most basic conditions of existence. When we say that something exists, we are saying that it is absolutely included in the definition of reality - its existence is *real*, such that its existence is actually *selected for* and its non-existence is *selected against*. If something were without an explanation, it would not be implicated within the explanatory structure of reality and thus its inclusion would not be "real" in the sense that existence requires. The fact its non-existence has been ruled out means it is explicable i.e., that its existence *follows* given the structure of reality. What is known as "sufficient cause" amounts to something's non-existence being absolutely ruled out by explanatory structure. Existence is synonymous with "relevant to reality" which means it must be implicated within reality's structure to the extent that it really *is relevant*.

When someone says that something *exists* yet is *random*, know that they are offering a contradiction in terms.

Things are random *until* they exist. Randomness appears, if my intetpetation of the physics is correct, to be the essence of matter and energy. It exists as randomness and then pops into existence only when it is observed. Once matter is observed, it ceases to be random and becomes real. I'm not sure if this is what you were saying, but I don't think it's wrong to call real things 'random" when that is how they were created. If I roll dice, I will call the results "random" even though I have already observed the results.

Also, nothing in objective reality is absolute. We have no tool, as conscious beings, to determine absoluteness. We can know subjective absolutes, but not objective, real absolutes.

If you accept the term "objective reality" as carrying meaning (not everyone does), the meaning generally attached is that it exists independent of any observer. That is an absolute - existence.
Additionally, existence means it has characteristics, independent of any observer, and therefore the characteristics are absolute.

Based on this, it seems you have an atypical meaning for "objective reality", and I am wondering what it is.
Can you explain the meaning as you use it.
Thanks
PureX
Posts: 1,525
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 3:28:56 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/26/2015 1:21:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

When someone says that something *exists* yet is *random*, know that they are offering a contradiction in terms.

You are confusing perception with actuality. What they are referring to is something that exists, but by means of an 'order' that they cannot identify. What we humans call "randomness" is really just another kind of order that's based on the use of chance.
Philosophy101
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 1:39:27 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/18/2016 12:36:10 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/18/2016 3:18:06 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/26/2015 1:21:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Something that lacks an explanation fails to meet even the most basic conditions of existence. When we say that something exists, we are saying that it is absolutely included in the definition of reality - its existence is *real*, such that its existence is actually *selected for* and its non-existence is *selected against*. If something were without an explanation, it would not be implicated within the explanatory structure of reality and thus its inclusion would not be "real" in the sense that existence requires. The fact its non-existence has been ruled out means it is explicable i.e., that its existence *follows* given the structure of reality. What is known as "sufficient cause" amounts to something's non-existence being absolutely ruled out by explanatory structure. Existence is synonymous with "relevant to reality" which means it must be implicated within reality's structure to the extent that it really *is relevant*.

When someone says that something *exists* yet is *random*, know that they are offering a contradiction in terms.

Things are random *until* they exist. Randomness appears, if my intetpetation of the physics is correct, to be the essence of matter and energy. It exists as randomness and then pops into existence only when it is observed. Once matter is observed, it ceases to be random and becomes real. I'm not sure if this is what you were saying, but I don't think it's wrong to call real things 'random" when that is how they were created. If I roll dice, I will call the results "random" even though I have already observed the results.

Also, nothing in objective reality is absolute. We have no tool, as conscious beings, to determine absoluteness. We can know subjective absolutes, but not objective, real absolutes.

If you accept the term "objective reality" as carrying meaning (not everyone does), the meaning generally attached is that it exists independent of any observer. That is an absolute - existence.
Additionally, existence means it has characteristics, independent of any observer, and therefore the characteristics are absolute.

Based on this, it seems you have an atypical meaning for "objective reality", and I am wondering what it is.
Can you explain the meaning as you use it.
Thanks

A sufficient cause is something that if occurs will result in a certain effect. It is sufficient to know I am allergic to bee stings to conclude if I get stung by a bee I will have an allergic reaction.

Randomness occurs when the casual structure results in abbhorant behavior, not that the causes are unknown. Rolling a die is a result of chance, but if all the relevant factors are deduced one can predict a die roll. Based on the relevant knowledge, the die roll could not have happened another way.

We do not have all this knowledge and so the die throw appears random. However this raises the relevant point, can the die throw have happened in another manner knowing the course of the entire universe? This is the idea of determination, that the casual structure of the universe is such that I could not have chosen to not respond to this post: I.e all events are inherently determined. The truth is I did respond and the falsehood would be I didn't respond. One can certainly imagine a scenerio where this did not happened; for instance instead I went to the store (which I desperately need to do) and likewise you would be reading some post on history instead of this post.

Could this have been the case? If randomness were introduced, certainly; but if not it is not quite as clear. So perhaps randomness is embedded in the universe or there are certain casual strucures allow revision, or perhaps we are trapped in the casual structure unable to disrupt the tides of fate.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2016 2:41:58 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/22/2016 1:39:27 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 11/18/2016 12:36:10 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/18/2016 3:18:06 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 3/26/2015 1:21:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Something that lacks an explanation fails to meet even the most basic conditions of existence. When we say that something exists, we are saying that it is absolutely included in the definition of reality - its existence is *real*, such that its existence is actually *selected for* and its non-existence is *selected against*. If something were without an explanation, it would not be implicated within the explanatory structure of reality and thus its inclusion would not be "real" in the sense that existence requires. The fact its non-existence has been ruled out means it is explicable i.e., that its existence *follows* given the structure of reality. What is known as "sufficient cause" amounts to something's non-existence being absolutely ruled out by explanatory structure. Existence is synonymous with "relevant to reality" which means it must be implicated within reality's structure to the extent that it really *is relevant*.

When someone says that something *exists* yet is *random*, know that they are offering a contradiction in terms.

Things are random *until* they exist. Randomness appears, if my intetpetation of the physics is correct, to be the essence of matter and energy. It exists as randomness and then pops into existence only when it is observed. Once matter is observed, it ceases to be random and becomes real. I'm not sure if this is what you were saying, but I don't think it's wrong to call real things 'random" when that is how they were created. If I roll dice, I will call the results "random" even though I have already observed the results.

Also, nothing in objective reality is absolute. We have no tool, as conscious beings, to determine absoluteness. We can know subjective absolutes, but not objective, real absolutes.

If you accept the term "objective reality" as carrying meaning (not everyone does), the meaning generally attached is that it exists independent of any observer. That is an absolute - existence.
Additionally, existence means it has characteristics, independent of any observer, and therefore the characteristics are absolute.

Based on this, it seems you have an atypical meaning for "objective reality", and I am wondering what it is.
Can you explain the meaning as you use it.
Thanks

A sufficient cause is something that if occurs will result in a certain effect. It is sufficient to know I am allergic to bee stings to conclude if I get stung by a bee I will have an allergic reaction.

Randomness occurs when the casual structure results in abbhorant behavior, not that the causes are unknown. Rolling a die is a result of chance, but if all the relevant factors are deduced one can predict a die roll. Based on the relevant knowledge, the die roll could not have happened another way.

We do not have all this knowledge and so the die throw appears random. However this raises the relevant point, can the die throw have happened in another manner knowing the course of the entire universe? This is the idea of determination, that the casual structure of the universe is such that I could not have chosen to not respond to this post: I.e all events are inherently determined. The truth is I did respond and the falsehood would be I didn't respond. One can certainly imagine a scenerio where this did not happened; for instance instead I went to the store (which I desperately need to do) and likewise you would be reading some post on history instead of this post.

Could this have been the case? If randomness were introduced, certainly; but if not it is not quite as clear. So perhaps randomness is embedded in the universe or there are certain casual strucures allow revision, or perhaps we are trapped in the casual structure unable to disrupt the tides of fate.

I am confused.
Are you explaining what the OP means by "objective reality"?

I believe you hit the wrong reply button - maybe not.
Let me know.