There is no REAL THING capable of “chance” on the cosmological scale. What REAL thing are you talking about? You say “Chance”, but you do not say what REAL THING is generating said “chance”. You’re engaging in a magician’s misdirection. There is nothing up your sleeve.
K: doesn’t have to be any UP my sleeve. In vegas, roll some dice. if the numbers come up to double six,
and you win a million dollars, was it god or chance/luck that was the reason for the double six.
If you don’t understand chance/luck, I really can’t help you. Chance plays a role in everything, even
on a cosmological scale. but it is not the “ultimate nature of reality”
Dice actually are REAL THINGS that satisfy the 3 requirements I gave you. First, the die has written options on the side. Two, you can put dice in a cup and roll them. Three, YOU are the someone that rolls them. Now, do the same thing for the cosmological scale. Name the REAL THING responsible for cosmological “chance”.
K: I have play lotto and I have bet the horses, gone to vegas and played the cards. In every instance,
chanced played a role. I do not have any control over any of these things, I cannot control the horses
I cannot control the cards and I don’t control the lotto. Chance determines if I win or lose. Chance
plays the same role in the universe. I never said it was the god of the universe nor was it the
deciding factor in the universe. It exists and it influences actions. Where the meteor hits
the earth is chance/luck. I am sorry you are unable to understand the role of chance in life or
in the universe, but that is not my problem.
It is not a failure to understand the role of “chance” in the universe. It is your failure to understand that “chance” does not simply occur on its own without a REAL THING being responsible for it. What is this REAL THING as far as the universe is concerned? Lotto has little bouncy balls. Horses have themselves. Playing cards have a dealer to mix them up. But, what does the universe have that creates this “chance”? Name it.
K: doesn’t have to be any UP my sleeve. In vegas, roll some dice. if the numbers come up to double six,
and you win a million dollars, was it god or chance/luck that was the reason for the double six.
If you don’t understand chance/luck, I really can’t help you. Chance plays a role in everything, even
on a cosmological scale. but it is not the “ultimate nature of reality”
JJ: Dice actually are REAL THINGS that satisfy the 3 requirements I gave you. First, the die has written options on the side. Two, you can put dice in a cup and roll them. Three, YOU are the someone that rolls them. Now, do the same thing for the cosmological scale. Name the REAL THING responsible for cosmological “chance”."
K: I have no way of knowing. Perhaps the universe exists because it was one billion and two degrees
and not one billion and one degrees and that one degree difference made all the difference.
I cannot account for life and I cannot account for the universe and I cannot account for chance.
Just because I cannot explain life or the universe doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, it just means
I cannot account for it just as I cannot account for chance. Chance is chance. I don’t live by it
but I do know it exists and it has influenced my life in rather dramatic ways. YOU really don’t get it,
do you? Life is chaos and random and has chance written all over it. All you can do is limit
the effects of chance in your life, you cannot control it and you cannot predict it and you cannot
deny it. Do we exist because of chance? perhaps, but it a better answer than god. At least we know
that chance exists. Does the universe exists because of chance, perhaps, but chance is a far better
answer for our existing than god. I would rather keep on looking for the why and not settle for the
easiest answer I can find like god. Saying god created the universe is really bottom of the barrel stuff.
I rather work a little bit harder for my answers.
Yeah, saying that everything is caused by “Chance” is working a WHOLE lot harder than saying that it is all caused by God…
Yes chance refers to things that you do not know. And that certainly does exist and determines everything, because of so very much that you do not know (God being merely one on that list).
K: I am guessing both you and JJ have learning disabilities because I have mentioned more than once
that I did not say “everything is caused by chance”. I said chance plays a role and it does.
the rest is yours. I am getting tired of arguing with people who seem unable to read,
it is tiring.
“I am tired” … of talking to people who don’t know the meaning of the words they are so adamant about (such as even what the word “god” actually means).
No wonder that your understanding is so very misaligned, your words have some vague invented meaning that differs from what thinking people are using.
I am not disputing the existence of “chance” when it comes to a REAL THING, such as dice, but when you start claiming that the cosmos is a result of cosmic “chance” or “chaos”, you better have an actual REAL THING in mind that is capable of generating said “chance”. You’ve identified nothing. That’s what I call a magical poor theory.
you keep responding as if I bear the onus. I bear the onus for my assertions, but your bear the onus for your assertions. I asked specific questions about how your assertions must be the case - and spent some time doing this - and you sum up, instead of supporting your statements, by saying I must demonstrate the opposite of your claims. This means you are acting as if your claims must be true unless someone can prove counterclaims. That is nto support for your argument.
Let me put this in specific context. I am a theist. I do not have the position there is no God. I think your argument, so far, is not sufficient. It does not demonstrate its claims. I challenge specific points in your arguments because of that. Then you act as if I must prove that matter can be eternal. That is absurd. I do not have a materialist belief system. I can be correct about the weaknesses of your argument, but not hold as true some other position that you oppose.
Beside the confusion about onus, it’s fairly rude the way your responded here. Instead of dealing with specific points, you simply restate your case and then expect that somehow now I have the onus. And then tossing in the 'you do not understand the complexity is just dominance rhetoric with no substance.
The proof for why existence never stops existing is because we are part of it and we are here.
The proof for why existence has always existed is both that something doesn’t come from nothing, and nothing doesn’t exist, so it can never be the case.
Additionally, existence is defined as a lack of homogeneity … So everything has always been heterogenous.
What this all means is that a being can neither create or destroy existence, that existence is self generating.
Additionally, if every section can be divided an infinite number of times, this causes homogeneity, because every section of space would have the same number of particles, infinite. More likely is that we have different particles that are fundamental, and at some point, fundamentally indivisible. But I haven’t meditated that one all the way through, so don’t quote me on it.
State from statelessness is possible, just like a lump of clay can be moulded into a shape. You just have events then no events, then events again [from potentiality [from infinite sets of metapositions, which become quantum positions]] ~ the universe is cyclic.
If you can travel one half, you have already set a precedent for being able to cross that much distance, therefor you can do it again. If you use Zeno in reverse so that you can’t even start, you need to have first crossed the whole half to start dividing it, and again, if you can do it once, you can do it again.
In both instances the finish line is reached.
To solve it with Achilles, the divisions are happening faster with Achilles than the tortoise.
That’s the simple solution, the problem is in that reality comes in proportions/fragments more than wholes [if you are to take a step, it is to take a segment of the world and move into it; a fragment/fraction]. The step in the paradox is half, then half again repeating, such that you never get past the first segment in each step. Infinite sets means that proportions/fractions are endless and so the bridge must be ultimately bridged, thus the full step can be taken. That may just be the reason why we live in a world of wholes [full steps/quanta] ~ and your original sentiment holds.
It’s the only solution, infinities don’t converge, that is a psychosis of mathematicians.
The way Zeno sets up the problem is that he assumes if you take a whole, you have already traversed the half. If you can traverse a half, you can do it again. If that’s too hard to grasp, just add another length from the first half and do another half, so the whole track is 1.5 just to get you to one. If you use the regress version, just make the track 2 so that half is 1. Because you have to start at half to begin dividing down.
"
