facticity - the universe says "hello"

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Facticity – I think Heidegger came up with the term. The world and its randomness and its way of “drawing you into it” – intruding into you’re carefully thought out and controlled world:

Item – On Friday I was cruising home from work on the old peddle bike – tire blew – I thought it was just a slow puncture till I got home – what if I had of been going a lot faster?

Item – Friday, again, coming off a bridge with 2 philosophers and find 550 dollars on a path in the middle of Dublin!

Item – Saturday – Coming home from a long night drinking by the canal on a 3…oo am late bush. Smash a bottle of beer through a window – green glass landing inches from me – one punter injured in the eye.

This whole week end the universe has been busy knocking on my (mostly) self imposed isolation – saying “hello its me your random friend/enemy”

I know some people find this random nature of the world depressing – but surely it’s an “openness” (term robbed off Dan~ in another thread) that should be welcomed, embraced – nothing is set and only some things are within the control/range of your comfort zone

2

I don’t remember saying that word: “openness”…

… :astonished:

Random events = Chaos = Imperfection = Variety = Stability = Width.

The universe of predictable motion had a divorce with the chaosphere.
Now they send eachother rare love letters and hatemail.
They can’t live in the same place anymore, though.

3

Wow Excellent!!!
Dan~ - you’re so quotable - don’t ever sell your soul (well your BIOS as you might see it???) to marketing!

Well I might not have quoted you exactly - hang on - no actually I’m a bit off the Mark

It was you quoting Faust with reference to Kev:

.

And actually he was referin’ to self not the universe

  • OK forget that!

Krossie

4

Hi Krossie,

Do you remember the Taoist tale of the farmer who happened to capture a wild stallion on the prairie? As he led it home his neighbors exclaimed at his luck. But for his part, the farmer would only say, “Maybe yes, maybe no.”

A few months later the stallion escaped and the same neighbors expressed sympathy for his misfortune. Again, his only reply was, “Maybe yes, maybe no.”

The next day the stallion returned to the farmer with six other beautiful wild horses following it. The neighbors cheered the farmer’s good luck. He only said, “Maybe yes, maybe no.”

The next week the farmers son broke his arm breaking one of the horses. The neighbors came to express their sorrow at his bad luck. Again, he would only say, “Maybe yes, maybe no.”

Two days later a press gang from the Emperor’s army came to take all the able-bodied young men off to a distant war. With his broken arm, the famer’s son was the only one to be spared. The neighbors marvelled at the farmer’s good fortune. The farmer would only say, “Maybe yes, maybe no.”

Krossie, I wonder about your use of the word “randomness,” in the context of your post. Do you reckon the macro events of your life are random, or is your inability to predict those events a function of your lack of knowledge?

“Mais quand une regle est fort composée, ce qui luy est conforme, passe pour irrégulier”
“But when a rule is extremely complex, that which conforms to it passes for random.”
Leibniz, Discours de métaphysique, 1686

Michael

edit: spelling

5

Dan wrote

Hi Dan,

I’m having difficulty in balancing your equation.

Chaos, in the mathematical or modern philosophical use of the word, is not equivalent to randomness. On the contrary, chaotic systems may be highly ordered - unpredictable, perhaps - nevertheless, determinate.

Does randomness equate to imperfection? In what sense are you using the word, “imperfection?”

Randomness injected into dynamical systems tends to destabilize them. What is it that you have in mind in equating randomness to stabilty?

Thanks,
Michael

6

I agree with Pole; the universe may not be random, simply so complicated that one person can’t tell precisely what is going on. To an extent, increasing complexity approaches chaos, so if order is intricate enough it can be mistaken for chaos. This all happens, though, beyond the scope of an individual in many cases, consequently demanding a sort of openness in perspective for a person to maintain sanity.

7

Small amounts of imperfection and chaos make for diversity and variety.

“Random” events are just behaviors which cannot be preducted by four dimensional data processing and four-dimensional minds.

I figure “random” things in D4 could be predicted in D5.

8

Hi Dan,

Thanks for the reply. You wrote

If randomness in a given dimension requires a mind of one higher dimension in order to predict it, wouldn’t you expect that our present three-dimensional mind would be able to predict the outcome of a mathematically random process plotted on a two-dimensional plane (an x,y Cartesian coordinate, perhaps)?

Could you help me to understand what all this business of higher mental dimensions has to do with successfully predicting randomly occuring phenomena?

Thanks,
Michael

9

Perhaps Dan is hinting at the “observation” alters “observed” paradox - if Aporia is right and the universe is not so much random but ÃœberComplex in excrutiatingly fine detail, then we will never discern the underlying rules from a viewpoint on the same plane/dimension.

Just second guessing… :wink:

10

First of I like the Taoist tale Polemarchus (who should have got more of a look in in the Republic!).
But I like almost all Taoist tales – they always keep cards close to their chest.

You could add (for the craic!) that he was out inspecting the farm the next day and one of the horses ran him over and killed him.
The neighbours got just no reply to their questions!

I dunno you’re forcing me to think (don’t like that!) – obviously much of your day to day routine is highly predictable BUT there are random intrusions e.g. finding that 550 dollars (which has only happened to me once and, probably, will only happen to me once) which would be close to unpredictable even with a Laplacian universe and a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge computer – you might be able to assign probabilities I suppose – but you’d spend so much time at it you’d never get out of the house.

(Get ofa that computer you’re dinner’s ready)

That sounds about right – so it amounts to the same thing on a level of day to day life – eg even if the universe (including those parts exhibiting chaotic behaviour) was reducible (a fairly abstract question) and even tho’the maths heads reckon 100% randomness doesn’t exist (I’ve heard) – there’s much on a day to day level that has to come as a surprise.

I think this is good and makes life more “lively”!