But this objectively random process you describe is not uncaused. It is caused by the machine that generates it. Which was built by you… etc.
Such a machine (I think, because I have no familiarity with such things) would function as the result of a multitude of very small processes combining and reacting to generate a specific result from a complex interaction; so complex that it could not be predicted.
By you, the observer.
I think you should use the word unpredictable, rather than random. If one knows the mechanisms inherent in the system, one can predict its outcome.
The nature of an uncaused cause is as I have already described it; if you want to defend the concept of a phenomenon being its own cause, or appearing from nothing, you are welcome to it…
If the process that the machine behaves in is objectively random, then there cannot be a true single cause for what the machine will do. The machine is the cause of the outcome, but does so through an objectively random process, which I described before:
The machine itself is uncaused in what it will do, though its existence can be caused, its actions aren’t.
Epistemic randomness states that things are merely unpredictable, so I agree that a process that is ultimately deterministic can be unpredictable. However, objective randomness states that even knowing all the antecedent conditions and prior mechanisms (if we ever reach a state like that), then it would still be random. This is similar to how quantum physics is treated, though it is still debatable, but you should still understand what the concepts are. An objectively random process either requires coming from nothing, or from an existing random process, which I have laid out in the example of the random number generator.
I understand what you mean by objective randomness, so you need not explain it.
What you mean is something from nothing; the machine itself is irrelevant and merely a vehicle for your theory.
How can a phenomenon’s actions be separated from it’s existence?
Action is inter(re)action; the definition of existence.
For this machine to generate a result, both the machine and the result would have to occupy theoretical “points” in the process. Otherwise, the appearance of the result would have nothing to do with the machine.
The fact that you can’t think of something does not make it non-existent. There are still primitive people who cannot think of some sort of objects which we can think of. Also there are things we can think of but do not exist (like God, or the will to power).
Can we think of God? No, we can only think of a bearded old geezer in a cloud or something—that is, of something (or a combinations of things) we have perceived in real life.
The fact that we can’t think of infinity does not make it non-existent. The same goes for (appearance from/disappearance into) nothingness.—
Is that what I have confirmed, or is that you constructing positions that you imagine I occupy?
I have demonstrated through my use of logic in this thread that I regard the universe as an infinite process, not separated into static states called cause and effect.
I make a point of rejecting the concept of forms in this instance.
Is it your suggestion that infinity as I describe it is a Form?
How can I describe the universe without recourse to my own perspective and experience of it?
Perhaps I should read through my collection of the works of a certain philosopher and quote his thoughts on it?
Where, in your, or mine, or anyone’s, experience is something from nothing? Where is “thingness” that would provide a basis for either of these concepts?
Yet everywhere I look I see the manifestation of phenomena which are themselves the result of past inter(re)action; which regresses.
Do you have a different conclusion to offer from Nietzsche’s thoughts, or are you just being vindictive by appearing in this thread?
When something comes from nothing, it just pops into existence, that is one form of randomness, as it is uncaused. This was my first understanding of objective randomness.
However, in the second idea of random, there is something that randomly causes an outcome. I am talking about the second idea of randomness.
Either a random outocme is created by nothing, or something, however both are random processes. The machine in the second is not merely a vehicle so to speak.
The machine is the cause of the actions, so it is as necessary for it to come from the machine as a random choice must come from a person. The outcome follows from the machine, but it is randomly caused by it. The machine is uncaused in what number it would generate.
Because the first idea is controversial, then if we are to ever accept objective randomness and avoid this result, then the alternative is that objects cause events, but in an objectively random process, unless we will continue on to an infinite regression that random events are caused by other random events, but never reach something that is truly uncaused, which will make it no different from determinism. The machine randomly “chooses” a number, so in that manner, it is uncaused to determine a particular number over the others.
That is what you have confirmed, by asking me for a third alternative.
I’m sure nobody has thought of that before… And that nobody, least of all I, has given any thought to that. No, you have been the first to grasp that, and I have been the first to grasp that infinity is as unthinkable as nothingness…
Of course not. How can something infinite have a form? Form after all consists in the way a thing is bounded (Lat. finitum).
You cannot. Therefore…
I can only speak for myself. Nowhere in my experience; but what about my experience itself? And where in my experience is something infinite?
I am vindictive?? Really, Satyr, the hate or contempt or whatever you wish to call it that you feel toward me has clouded your judgment. Who said anything about Nietzsche in this thread? Not I.
The ‘conclusion’ that I have to offer is that, beyond our horizons, there is probably more of the ‘same’ as what is within them; and that any attempt at describing the universe as a whole is futile.
And as you’re asking me for a Nietzschean perspective: according to Nietzsche, all we know is the will to power, so what is beyond our horizons is probably also will to power and nothing besides; and in at least one passage (WP 1067), he postulates that the will to power as a whole be finite and enclosed by ‘nothing’ as by a boundary. This is another instance where I do not agree with him.
We can agree on the fact that Causality is insufficient in order to explain the entire or absolute universe. Because, of course, infinite causation changes the context(s) and conceptual limits involved in cognizing reality. But, there are other branches of logic within and outside of Causality. Causality is not the be-all, end-all logic. Causality explains sequential algorithms very well, but, fails to account for multiple spatial and non spatial dimensions.
I don’t think causality is sufficient enough to explain god either.
We’ve reached a stalemate, I with my disbelief in walls, and you with the causal chains, secured upon an encircling wall.
Technically, “nothing” is sufficient to explain God because God essentially is all knowing/powerful/seeing. Yet, some believers in God still disassociate this common truth (that God represents Power and Authority). But, yes, Apaosha is correct. Not only cannot Causality explain or describe the full extent of the universe, Causality also cannot explain God or the (ultimate) origin of mankind. Let’s pretend that humanity is a pet project for alien species, for example. And that, over millions of years, our solar system switched from being under the control of a lizardesque alien civilization, that Earth fell into the hands of a humanoid alien civilization. So, this alien civilization nukes or sends a meteor into Earth. Then, these humanoid aliens subtly craft human history into one where the humanoid form dominates and rises to prominence. These aliens would essentially be the ‘cause’ of mankind on Earth insofar as our (humanoid) specie has not become extinct.
Now, the point of this fictional example, is that even IF humanity begins and ends galacticly, then that means that the origin of mankind STILL originates somewhere else, or someplace else. What if SPACE actually never ends or begins? What if TIME similarly has no beginning or end? What if life and death cannot become applied to the universe as a whole? These questions destroy scientists; this is why philosophy is more powerful than science. Philosophy asks (and answers) questions that Science does not (yet) have the scope to determine.
Walls exist whether you believe in them or not. In fact, ‘houses’ would become impossible without the idea of walls.
I don’t believe in what I’ve never witnessed…as I do not believe in the immutable thing or a universal boundary, or a Man in the sky, or Leprechauns, or flying hippos…
The metaphor escaped you…through one of those walls you’ve erected around your brain.
Even the wall around your proverbial room, is porous and can be exited, and is mutable.
When you find the ends of reality make sure you take some pictures before you open the door and exit…but I do think your mind is already outside space/time - unhindered by anything real.
Ontopepistemology beckons…keep the faith brotha’…remember to repeat your prayers:
Do you believe there exists a dark side of the moon, because you’ve never been there, or seen it, or flown there to lift the gravel for yourself?
Let’s start with something easier. Do you believe the world is round, without taking the nonstop flight for yourself? How would you know for certain?
Some things should not become believed. Other things should, like Gravity. Or the rotation of celestial objects, like planets and orbits. Do we need to fly to Mars just to make sure it exists, to believe it exists? Do we need several authorities and their agreement to determine its existence? Or is seeing also believing? What constitutes evidence to an aging and closed mind?
Exited by what? You have no context without a point of contention. What enters and exits rooms? Is light an object?
That depends upon your definition of reality. The scope of some minds are wider than others, encompassing more of what you call, reality.
That is unnecessary. If I am smart, and a man, then these facts will become obvious to those who care to inquiry. Who cares to know about I?
I can never know anything completely or for certain…but presumably you can and you do.
That’s why you are “special” and can use words to replace reality.
What I do is extrapolate probabilities from what I do percieve, by also using the deductions and assumptions of others, comparing them with my own experiences and then coming to a superior conclusion.
The “dark side of the moon” bit is one you suckle on, like a nervous toddler, every time this issue comes about.
My experience with reality tells me there are spherical objects, and so I assume that the moon is spherical, and not a two-dimensional drawing, given that this would require an extraordinary solution.
I then conclude that the moon has an other side, and adding what others have told me about the movement and behavior of celestial bodies, which I’ve found no reason to reject, I conclude that most probably there is a dark side to the moon without having to see it.
As is always the case, a simple mind finds simple arguments to support its simplicity.
as I have found nothing immutable, I cannot conclude that there is such a state, and given that a boundary around existence would separate it from some nonsesical state of non-existence, and has no meaning outside a poor mind grasping at images to make sense of it all, I cannot place a wall around existence.
But you can…and you do…and you will.
If you study cosmology, quantum physics or even biology you might discover that your room, or even your body, isn’t as completely sealed off, as you would like to think it is.
And yours are contained within the limitations of your youthful naivete.
You, dear chap, are in for a long hard trek across a world that will continuously cause you distress.
Make sure to close yourself off in a absolute room, where all is certain, and you are safe.
So you know nothing completely and for certain, then. Okay, Socrates. But, your feigned ignorance of knowledge will not fly far with me.
Actually, everybody can and does. How else would we know that (most) peoples are born with 10 digits? I know. We know. This is not a fact up for debate.
I use words to represent reality, not replace it. This is your misunderstanding, within the subtleties of language.
Indeed, and I can see you doing that now.
I find this analogy a good one for dealing with an uncommon ignorance that you display, regarding knowledge/epistemology.
That’s correct, you “assume” that there exists a dark side of the moon. But, existence is not setup that way, to become merely assumed or presumed. Existence is. And if you could expound this fact, then you may come to learn why the dark side of the moon can constitute a human knowledge, and not a human assumption.
But, that was not my question. I asked you if there is or is not. Your answer, there probably is, admits an ounce of skepticism on this issue. Weakness in/to the face of certainty. This is the skepticism I refer to now. What can we doubt, then??? That we exist, as humans? That I exist, as a thinking animal??? How far will your skepticism go while turned on itself? Where will your certainty ever begin, except devoted to nothing at all???
If my argument were simple, then you would be able to answer it clearly and concisely, rather than dodge the questions, correct??? Be careful with your implications of slander. If my mind is simple, then perhaps you could prove this to me or to anyone really. Prove it to yourself, logically or actually. Do you want to know a true sign of simplicity? Dodging questions is a rhetorical feat of dexterity. How you react to this dodging, with a derision, is telling. It presents to me a weakness in your argument, not my own.
Nor should you. Who is asking you to place walls around existence? Yet, one must in order to form a coherent knowledge, Yes??? Yes. This is the give and take. I recommend being able to properly build walls, AND, to tear them down. A philosopher should become able to do both, with equal ease and discipline. Become ambidexterous in your thinking. This is the key.
From time to time, I will. All position rests upon foundations, to erect these walls. Now, tell me of metaphysics as your foundation. What is a foundation for if NOT to build walls? To construct something. A thesis, perhaps. Are you not guilty of these same accusations you lob toward me? I adore hypotheses. These are the true metal of thinking, and, the true analysis of one’s thinking. You can always determine the intelligence of a man by inquiring into his theses (if he has any intelligence at all) and understanding the methods and motives of his construction/deconstruction. Knowledge is about building, whether putting up or tearing down is up to whomever to decide for themselves.
And you dodged the question again, Super-Man, with your cosmic dexterity. I do not dissuade your presented fact, by the way.
Perhaps, then, I am not as naive as I initially lead on to believe.
Alas, the sun is bright when & where ever I go.
As, it is the nature of my consciousness to regard it so.