Everything

[Iacchus]

You're still thinking too black and white. There ARE inbetweens.

Yes, without space between the forms, there would be no forms. However, does that mean the space between the forms is without structure? What if the forms were cast iron balls and the space between the forms green pea soup?

For example, the result of a roll of a dice is random, but also controlled because the result must be 1-6.

Random only in the hypothetical sense.

The Universe could be mostly rational, but allowing irrational behaviour aswell. It could be MOSTLY reasonable.

Take cause and effect for example. What if 99% of effects have causes, but 1% occur uncaused, irrationally? Is that a possibility?

If not, why not?

What does rational mean, if it could not be explained in "varying" degrees? What would there be to explain if there was no "difference" between things?

 

[Humphreys]

I'm sorry lacchus, but I can't make sense of most of your post. You'll have to be more literal or something.

The claim that the roll of a dice is random only in the hypothetical sense is just your opinion however, and not one rooted in fact, or backed up by any evidence.

 

[CplFerro]

Humphreys,

Statistical randomness is just a function of our ignorance. That people imagine it to be true randomness has probably been helped by the subtle, pernicious effects of board games and gambling, besides Aristotelianism and its descendant or parallel philosophies like Taoism.

Your sandwich example is just an example of people giving up trying to explain. This is no different from the ancients asking what the sun was made of, or where rains of frogs came from, or rivers of blood, or what stars were. No strange phenomenon is proof of randomness, only of ignorance. The exampled world would develop Sandwich Studies Institutes and so on trying to prove the Dagwood Principle, competing against fundamentalist Hamites defending the notion that sandwiches appear miraculously for no knowable reason.

Whenever you're tempted to casually admit uncaused events to your cocktail party, keep an eye on them or odds are your carpet cleaning bill will be atrocious. Your 99% rational universe example is an instance of this. That 1% of events that occur uncaused could each occur anywhere, at anytime, with any area of effect, at any rate, for any duration, with any frequency, and in any shade, pattern, colour, or texture. It shouldn't be hard for any thinking person to see that such causeless events cannot have any reason applied to them to fence them in - leading to the entire universe effectively being an uncaused event. That 99:1 ratio, itself has no reason, for if there was, it would be giving a cause to the causeless.

This is about the limit of my ability to come up with colourful and humourous ways to explain the matter. In short, whenever a scientist says "That's intrinsically chaotic" the proper response is to point ones finger at him and say "You're a lazy ass who's given up looking for answers, prefering to dwell in ignorance." Chaos, irrationality, causelessness, randominity, and any other synonym for the same fancy, are thus merely expressions of hopelessness.*

* Which I must admit is somewhat depressing, since the departure of chaos renders me unable to hang free will on anything, leaving me to conclude we're all frozen in stone, to so speak. I'd like to imagine some kind of sovereign, indeterminate choice exists for us, but what would that really mean?

 

[Iacchus]

True randomness is merely a concept, like infinity. It is not possible in the physical sense, because there will always be some variable "inflicting" upon any true roll of the dice. Perhaps it might make more sense when flipping a coin? There is no way you can flip the same coin twice ... unless of course you could flip it precisely and maintain a perfect equillibrium.

 

[Iacchus]

* Which I must admit is somewhat depressing, since the departure of chaos renders me unable to hang free will on anything, leaving me to conclude we're all frozen in stone, to so speak. I'd like to imagine some kind of sovereign, indeterminate choice exists for us, but what would that really mean?

Free will (hence the notion of randomness) hangs on the equillibrium which exists in perfection ... outside of time and space that is. Of course what I'm promoting is the notion of dualism here.

 

[CplFerro]

Free will (hence the notion of randomness) hangs on the equillibrium which exists in perfection ... outside of time and space that is. Of course what I'm promoting is the notion of dualism here.

Ah, and I do not accept dualism or balance. Balance requires two equal things, and there can never be two equal things, for being equal, they would be the same. Thus, nothing is identical in all the universe, whether sensorily or conceptually. I would go further to guess that all dualisms like up/down, good/bad, black/white, dull/sharp, and so on are always slightly skewed in favour of one or the other, the example being darkness as a case of dimmed light, bad being a case of corrupted good, and so on. No, I don't have a grand theory proving this, but it follows in spirit from the refutation of balance and duality.

 

[CplFerro]

a) To know why something exists, we must be able to make a comparison between its existance and its non-existance.
b) We can never leave our universe, as we are both inside and a part of the 'system'.
c) To know the universes state of 'non-existance', we must observe something that is outside our universe (as, by definition, our universe exists until its boundry)
Therefore d) We can never know why the universe exists.

To my understanding you’re disputing that (1) we can know the universe must exist, (2) we can know the universe exists as it does for a reason (albeit unknown), and (3) we can know that reason. I disagree on all counts. (1) and (2), because you are simply defending chaos, which I’ll spend no more time prosecuting. (3) because although I agree we cannot know this reason perfectly, we can know it increasingly less imperfectly, through discoveries of principle.

 

[Iacchus]

Ah, and I do not accept dualism or balance. Balance requires two equal things, and there can never be two equal things, for being equal, they would be the same. Thus, nothing is identical in all the universe, whether sensorily or conceptually. I would go further to guess that all dualisms like up/down, good/bad, black/white, dull/sharp, and so on are always slightly skewed in favour of one or the other, the example being darkness as a case of dimmed light, bad being a case of corrupted good, and so on. No, I don't have a grand theory proving this, but it follows in spirit from the refutation of balance and duality.

I agree. Perfect balance (with respect to dualism) cannot be achieved in the physical sense. Albeit I do understand -- or, as I have been told -- the Universe, as a whole, exists at a state of "zero energy" ... in that it doesn't produce energy or, lose it. So in that sense it is possible for things to "fluctuate," while maintaining a sense of wholeness overall. Which, is why the symbol of the Yin and Yang (symbol of dualism) denotes a sine wave (essentially) within a circle.

So, why is that "wholeness" denotes balance, as well as a sense of randomness?

 

[Humphreys]

Humphreys,

Statistical randomness is just a function of our ignorance. That people imagine it to be true randomness has probably been helped by the subtle, pernicious effects of board games and gambling, besides Aristotelianism and its descendant or parallel philosophies like Taoism.

Your sandwich example is just an example of people giving up trying to explain. This is no different from the ancients asking what the sun was made of, or where rains of frogs came from, or rivers of blood, or what stars were. No strange phenomenon is proof of randomness, only of ignorance.

Prove it. You're just making assertions right now.

Your argument was that a Universe can be only wholly reasonable or pure chaos, and I just gave an example of something inbetween that you have not shown to be an impossible scenario.

Whenever you're tempted to casually admit uncaused events to your cocktail party, keep an eye on them or odds are your carpet cleaning bill will be atrocious. Your 99% rational universe example is an instance of this. That 1% of events that occur uncaused could each occur anywhere, at anytime, with any area of effect, at any rate, for any duration, with any frequency, and in any shade, pattern, colour, or texture.

Let's change them slightly then. Not only are they always ham sandwiches which always appear in England, but they also only appear on wednesdays.

It shouldn't be hard for any thinking person to see that such causeless events cannot have any reason applied to them to fence them in - leading to the entire universe effectively being an uncaused event.

Not at all. We can't apply any reason to these sandwiches because they are irrational, that's the point. This does not render the whole Universe irrational however, or lead to it being an uncaused event.

Why would it? The rest of the Universe is logical, rational, and predictable.

 

[jan]

Taffer and CplFerro, sorry for the delay in answering (some real-world interferences). I hope I will able to contribute again on Wednesday.

 

[Taffer]

I agree with Humphreys. It is possible to have things in the universe truely random. I do not consider this to have things "have no cause", but simply that we cannot predict the outcome. There are plenty of examples where this is true. For example radioactive decay, bound particles (photons, electrons, etc), Young's Slit Experiment, etc etc etc. Not only do these appear random to us (something that appears random might not be random, we might simply not understand how to predict it), and it is random in theory. I do not accept that there is no truely random acts in the universe, nor do I accept that a scientist saying "it is chaotic" is lazy. The phrase "it is chaotic" really means "it behaves as if it is chaotic", and only if the theory produces truely random acts as well as the observation would I call it truely random. But something can be subjectively random rather then truely random. To me, a coin flip is random. I believe this is duscussed in this thread.

To my understanding you’re disputing that (1) we can know the universe must exist, (2) we can know the universe exists as it does for a reason (albeit unknown), and (3) we can know that reason. I disagree on all counts. (1) and (2), because you are simply defending chaos, which I’ll spend no more time prosecuting. (3) because although I agree we cannot know this reason perfectly, we can know it increasingly less imperfectly, through discoveries of principle.

Your three statements are simply rewordings of my final conclusion. I am saying a) to know why something is we must see what it could have been, b) do know what the universe could have been we must go outside it and c) we can never leave the universe therefore d) we cannot know why the universe is. Now if you have a problem with my argument, it has to be with one of the three premises, because if you accept them the conclusion is obvious, and you must accept that too.

Personally (and somewhat Metaphysically), I tend to agree with Chaos Theory, in that everything is linked. The Butterfly and the Hurricane. And so, I guess, on a purely philisophical stand point I do not believe in free will. What we call free will is an illusion, because we are more akin to robots then a true being with free will. However, this illusion is on such a large scale (i.e. we must look hard, either close up of very far away) to notice it, so practically there is free will.

EDIT: I will look forward to your return, jan. Your imput is most valuable.

 

[CplFerro]

Humphreys has introduced no proof of anything irrational. Inexplicable events happen all the time. Wednesday sandwiches or rains of frogs, it’s all one to me. But...

Taffer has got me. I cannot think of any objection to the idea that the Absolute could arrange things such that there are mysteries which, though rational, are ultimately only capable of being purely understood by the Absolute itself. Such mysteries could only be known by man through revelation, but how you’d prove to others the truth of knowledge gained through such means I’m not sure. Thus I concede your point, and apologise to the quantum physicists for calling them lazy.

Taffer’s a) to d) line of reasoning follows only for us attempting to know the Absolute perfectly, and even then I’m not sure, for it would imply that the Absolute itself cannot know its own motives! Thus (on step a)) I imagine the needed comparison is not between X and “nothing,” but X and Y. A thing is only conceivable in a relationship with something else. Thus the Absolute knows itself through relationship, just as man makes discoveries through relationship.

 

[Taffer]

I am still confused as to how you associate my view with having a controller, or 'Absolute' as you put it. My view does not need a controller. It does not need a cause. Perhaps there is a God who created the universe from 'outside' it, or perhaps there isn't. It doesn't matter. The knowledge of its existance is not obtainable.

Taffer has got me. I cannot think of any objection to the idea that the Absolute could arrange things such that there are mysteries which, though rational, are ultimately only capable of being purely understood by the Absolute itself. Such mysteries could only be known by man through revelation, but how you’d prove to others the truth of knowledge gained through such means I’m not sure. Thus I concede your point, and apologise to the quantum physicists for calling them lazy.

Again, you've manage to throw in the idea of an 'Absolute Causer'. I stand by my statement of things truely Random, but it needs no 'Absolute Causer' (hereafter AC). Randomness is not a property that an object has, it is an observation. The coin flipped isn't random, but our observation of which way it lands is. A nucleus spontaniously releasing radiation (be it a proton, an He nucleus or a photon) appears random, and our theories back this up, but perhaps it isn't. Thus the observed phenomenon is random, but can't know for certain if it truely is. Even if it truely is, how does this need an AC? Randomness is an observed phenomenon, not a property inherent property of an object.

Taffer’s a) to d) line of reasoning follows only for us attempting to know the Absolute perfectly, and even then I’m not sure, for it would imply that the Absolute itself cannot know its own motives!

Please explain why there needs to be an AC at all?

Thus (on step a)) I imagine the needed comparison is not between X and “nothing,” but X and Y.

Exactly. And I never said what 'Y' is. 'Y' might be nothing, it might be a jam sandwich. It doesn't matter. The point is that 'Y' is outside our universe, and this unknowable.

A thing is only conceivable in a relationship with something else.

Exactly.

Thus the Absolute knows itself through relationship, just as man makes discoveries through relationship.

Again, how did you arrise at the notion of an AC?

 

[Humphreys]

Humphreys has introduced no proof of anything irrational. Inexplicable events happen all the time. Wednesday sandwiches or rains of frogs, it’s all one to me.

It wasn't my job to. By making the claim that a Universe must be either wholly rational or wholly irrational with no inbetween, the onus of proof became yours.

 

[CplFerro]

Humphreys,

You're introducing enigmatic sandwich appearances with the explicit assumption that they are "irrational". I say prove it, or I won't consider them any different than any other phenomenon. Science is based on the assumption that everything is rational and subject to exploration. What possible proof can there be that something is irrational? It's just the "God of the gaps" argument all over again.

Taffer,

I will never relinquish my position that pure irrationality is impossible, which leaves the only alternative that everything has a reason for its existence, including the universe itself. That reason for the universe as a whole I refer to as the Absolute.

On the need for relationship to have knowledge, the assumption is being made that the universe must relate to something "outside of itself." I do not assume that, but rather that a thing can relate to something inside itself. The Christian example being the idea of the Trinity - a unified substance that nevertheless contains relationship between its qualities or aspects.

 

[Mercutio]

I will never relinquish my position that pure irrationality is impossible, which leaves the only alternative that everything has a reason for its existence, including the universe itself.

Sounds like your mind is made up, then, and you are locked into a position that is well beyond any current evidence to support it.

I suppose, though I could be mistaken, that pure rationality is impossible. Does that leave as the only alternative... never mind.

 

[Taffer]

Taffer,

I will never relinquish my position that pure irrationality is impossible, which leaves the only alternative that everything has a reason for its existence, including the universe itself. That reason for the universe as a whole I refer to as the Absolute.

Then there is no point continuing our discussion. Your naming the 'reason the universe exists' the Absolute is misleading, as it tends to imply an absolute controlling being, i.e. God.

On the need for relationship to have knowledge, the assumption is being made that the universe must relate to something "outside of itself." I do not assume that, but rather that a thing can relate to something inside itself. The Christian example being the idea of the Trinity - a unified substance that nevertheless contains relationship between its qualities or aspects.

And I do not agree, the universe is 'everything', not just a 'shell'. Therefore, you are relating the universe to itself, which does not work.

 

[Humphreys]

You're introducing enigmatic sandwich appearances with the explicit assumption that they are "irrational". I say prove it, or I won't consider them any different than any other phenomenon. Science is based on the assumption that everything is rational and subject to exploration. What possible proof can there be that something is irrational? It's just the "God of the gaps" argument all over again.

I'm not arguing that irrationality is a fact, I'm arguing that it is a possibility. You have to show why it is impossible, because that is your claim. You haven't even attempted to do this. Stating that we could never know whether something is irrational or not is not proof that irrational things do not exist.

This discussion has been ridiculous right from the start. You claimed that the Universe can only be wholly rational or wholly irrational, without being able to prove why this must be the case, then you claimed it cannot possibly be wholly irrational because irrationality is impossible. You failed to prove why.

All I was doing with my sandwich analogy was proving that there could be an inbetween. It could be that the Universe is logical and rational for the most part, but contains irrational events, like effects without causes and so on.

You however, are just making bald assertions.

 

[Taffer]

I used to believe that the universe would be wholly rational, with every event having a cause. But then I encountered problems. Such a view would lead to an infinite regress of causes (the cause, the cause of the cause, the cause of the cause of the cause ad infinitum). Such a view also does not seem to fit with some theories and observations of quantum mechanics, such as particles that appear and disappear at random in space, with no apparent cause. Perhaps there is a cause and we do not know it, or perhaps there isn't, I can't say. However, now I must agree with Humphreys. The universe might be irrational. There is nothing to say that it isn't other then our own observations (and not all of them, since quantum physics came along), which could be wrong. While it's probable, in my opinion, that the universe is rational, this is no way means that it is. To say that it must be would need an impressive line of reasoning.

 

[jan]

I used to believe that the universe would be wholly rational, with every event having a cause. But then I encountered problems. Such a view would lead to an infinite regress of causes (the cause, the cause of the cause, the cause of the cause of the cause ad infinitum).

I think those troubles can be multiplied. This infinite chain of causes — is it not something that needs a cause? Called, for example, "cause ω"? And that would need a "cause ω+1", and that would need a "cause ω+2", and so on. But this chain would certainly need another cause, call it "cause ω2". And then we can construct the infinite chain of "cause ω", "cause ω2", "cause ω3"... Obviously, this chain of causes needs a cause. Let's call it "cause ω²". And so on.

Even infinite many causes are insufficient if you require a cause for every thing and every aggregation of things.

But, of course, that still doesn't show that there are things without a cause. The chains of causes depicted above may be absurd, but that doesn't mean that it is impossible.