You are describing a process which is equally likely to eventuate one of any amount of outcomes; any outcome is as likely as the other. You accept the requirement of interaction for events to occur, but posit that certain interactions do not always generate the same result.
I would again state that this is unpredictability; it is certainly not uncaused in any way. Stating that it is random is simply the use of a synonym: a phenomena is the result of past interaction; it’s manifestation is the expression of it’s past. If the process occurs in such a way that one cannot predict it, then one’s knowledge of the process is incomplete.
That the machine may produce any amount of differing effects from identical starting conditions does not constitute something from nothing.
That is, if we take the unknowability of it’s mechanism as a given - which I wouldn’t.
Or, that identical starting positions can be achieved for the purposes of demonstrating this theory…
There is no reason to assume that there are not variables within the machine’s processes of which an observer is not aware; but if he was, could predict the outcome at any given time.
Chaos Theory and Hidden Variable Theory touch on these points…
The probabilities are not subjective, they are objective. The interaction between the machine and its determining the number is present, but the process of the machine determining the number is objectively random, and thus the machine cannot be caused to one particular outcome. If the machine were to be rewound to the exact same circumstances prior to the generation of the number, then things can turn out differently based on the random processes of the machine.
Again there is a difference between unpredictability (epistemic randomness)and randomness (objective randomness).
The number is of course caused by the machine, but how the machine determines the number is uncaused and objectively random. If we had complete knowledge of a deterministic process and its inputs, then we can infallibly predict its outcome. But if one had complete knowledge of an objectively random phenomenon (in this case the machine’s random processes), then it would still not be infallibly predictable as it is random in an objective sense. If we assume that quantum physics is truly objectively random, for example, then even having complete knwledge of its processes, we cannot predict it.
That is the whole point of a thought experiment. I am not making assertions about what exists in this world. Its hypothetical. The main idea is to make a scenario about objective randomness and show how an uncaused cause applies to it, and how the term is not limited to the idea of “god”, or a “prime mover of all existence”. I am the cause of the machine with random processes, but the random processes of the machine operate uncaused by prior events.
Perfect against an objective assertion, but I am not making one.
What have I done but ask you to justify or expand upon an assertion you have made in this thread - that infinity is unthinkable?
Am I to occupy your side of the argument, or are you going to say something?
As far as I am aware, Heraclitus was the first to occupy a position contrary to Platonic Form.
If you don’t know about either of them, then I suggest you consult your Idol’s thoughts on the subject. They were many and varied…
What is bounded within unchanging, immutable walls and where is it that I can see it for myself?
Such a Thing would be a Revelation.
I look around me; I observe; I interpret these observations; I formulate an hypothesis; I communicate this hypothesis to others with words.
I look at you; I note your inability to think thoughts that were not Nietzsche’s; I assume this is because you cannot; I post on this forum, stating this.
I have just described the universe … and you.
Whether or not my hypothesis is accurate is decided by it’s comparison to the standard; therefore it is dependent on my capacity to perceive the standard and extrapolate from that.
When it comes to the universe, I note the constant flow of action and reaction, the lack of beginings and ends, the lack of a frozen, inert state.
Therefore I assume that all I can perceive is a process without a beginning or end. I make this assumption because no such events are anywhere in evidence.
I could speculate further and suggest that your presence in this thread is because I observed and described your actions… and that you are seeking to save face by looking for that soft spot, the weakness in my logic… so that you can score points off me and convince yourself you’re not such a retard.
Similarly, I could speculate that the lack of beginnings and endings suggests infinity; because a process that does not move from or into a beginning or end is infinite. Existence is Becoming; nowhere is there Being. It is movement, flow, change, mutability which does not reach a state of completion.
This is the nature of a description. One observes, one expresses that observation in the form of a communicable idea or concept. That this concept is not the reality, but merely refers to it is a given, surely?
Are you asking me to describe your subjective experience of the world around you?
I will not occupy your position in this discussion. I have told you that.
Are you so ineffectual?
I am not Satyr.
My assertion of your vindictiveness stems from our exchange in your greek state thread… which you seem to have backed out of.
If you want to accuse someone of being the mouthpiece of another person, imitating another person, or quoting and analysing another’s words to the exclusion of all else … I suggest you look in a mirror.
If you want to offer these accusations as a form of parody of mine towards you… then I would suggest that you are continuing to pursue your habit of imitation to the point of comedy.
While I agree that our horizons are limited, I see no reason not to speculate on their nature from within my current perspective and level of knowledge. Whether these speculations are accurate or not will depend upon the expansion of these supposed “horizons”…
I was not asking because I do not care. That was sarcasm.
This is the first time you ask me that. And yes, I can of course only say that infinity is unthinkable for myself. Logically, however, it is unthinkable for any finite being.
You are now confusing infinity with indefiniteness.
You have not, and cannot, observe the whole universe. Therefore, you cannot describe it. And therefore…
Only a minor part of it—and inaccurately to boot!
And that is where you’d be mistaken. You have not seen and cannot see a beginning or end. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
No, I’m asking you to admit that the same goes for your subjective experience. What about your experience itself? Has it always existed? Will it always exist? And where in it is there something infinite?
That’s because you will be banned as soon as the staff ‘assumes’ that, too. But either you are Satyr, or you have emulated him so completely that you ‘deserve’ to be identified with him.
Yes, TIMBER, that was what I described - a process that could give different results each time it was instigated.
You are proposing a paradox where the result of a process is both caused (by the machine) and yet uncaused (as it is “objectively random”). I suggest you try to reconcile this contradiction a little better.
It’s fine that it’s a thought-experiment, but unless this theory can be found to have a correlation with the apparent then it is pointless to pursue it…
Then we cannot say that it is predictable even if we had complete knowledge of how it operates, because the process is random. Either it is objectively random, or it is not. Which do you follow?
You seem to completely misinterpret what I have been saying. The process is a description of how the machine causes the outcome. In other words: randomly in an objective sense. The outcome is caused, the process that causes the outcome is uncaused (to cause that particular outcome).
The contradiction that you seem to see is a misconception, because you are considering that the outcome is caused (by the machine) and uncaused. I say that the outcome is caused by the machine, and how the machine causes an outcome is through a random process. How the process (the machine determining the outcome) comes to an outcome is uncaused on what it would cause ( as that is objectively random).
And can we have complete knowledge of how it operates; and if so, how can we know it is complete?
Or, simply because it remains opaque to our observation, must we assume it is unknowable?
I do not “believe” in objective randomness as there is no convincing example of such besides quantum interaction… which is a field that has not been completely explored.
I would consider it completely explored when it is predictable.
But then I operate from the presumption that all I perceive can be analysed and understood; that it is therefore predictable; and that a process which appears to give different results from the same instigation contains variables that I am unaware of.
Otherwise, it is possible to fall up, to breathe water, etc because any and every interaction may produce unforseen and unknowable consequences.
From experience this is not the case, therefore objective randomness is not the case.
It is not uncaused in any way - the machine causes it.
The process generates an outcome that you cannot predict, therefore you perceive it as random because you are ignorant of it’s mechanism.
One is perfectly capable of instigating a process without knowing the outcome.
You assume that because something cannot be predicted, or it’s mechanism of generation not known, that it is uncaused. But this is not the case; the machine’s process arrived at an outcome. That this outcome can vary tells us that there are variables built into the machine in order to generate these different outcomes.
The different outcomes do not arise out of identical processes because there are no identical processes.
The very fact that one can build a machine that generates such results indicates an understanding of variability and its uses; it indicates that these processes can be understood and constructed, if not predicted.
…
It seems to me that you are arriving at a conclusion of an uncaused outcome through the concept of the unknowability of it’s process, by suggesting that a single process may have variable outcomes under identical conditions.
You also separate the process and it’s outcome into separate states: machine process–>random result.
But the case is that the result the machine generates is an expression of the activity within the machine and cannot be divorced from that.
My position is that, given an identical process, the machine would always generate an identical result.
But not wih justifications; I’ll follow your lead of baseless declarations…
I have not seen a post of yours that does not mention Nietzsche; it does not mean such a post does not exist.
All I can do is observe what is around me and trust the observations of those who have seen what I have not.
Therefore, my spectrum is limited.
Of course.
And?
What is my experience but my consciousness?
What is my consciousness but the effect of interaction within the organ of my brain?
What is that organ, but a phenomenon?
What is a phenomena but the manifestation of an infinite process?
I have had long and cordial relations with the “staff” on this site … but I am not Satyr. If, on the other hand, you want to stubbornly continue to assume that I am - by all means. But you are embarassing yourself.
In my case, the expression of increasing impatience and disinterest.
Enough of your projections of fear, and accusations, accuser.
Yes, you do. You are just not self-conscious enough to realize this fact. You are ignorant to your subordinate role in the greater scheme of things.
Wouldn’t we all love to know??? Don’t we need to know???
Causality is one (primary) branch of logic, of many branches. Causality cannot explain beginnings and ends, or points. However, other systems of logic can.
Unless solipsism is true, I begin and end where my body begins and ends. So where does my body begin and end? True, its boundaries are indefinite; but that does not make it infinite.
No: therefore, any attempt to do so is futile.
I won’t, as I’ve already read it well.
The latter statement, surely.
Whatever.
And therefore, it’s futile to speculate about what you would see if your spectrum were unlimited.
That the process is infinite is what you claim in this thread. Anyway, even if the process is infinite, that particular manifestation is not.
Unfortunate, then, for you, that you seem unable to rationally dismiss my point.
If something is objectively random, then how it works is just that: objectively random. From that idea we should understand that it cannot be caused (whether we know it or not) from just mere deduction. My example is just looking at the concept, so understand that I am not going into objective assertions about the world.
Do you understand what the concept of objective randomness is? Make the example with quantum physics, and since I understand that you disagree with the assertion that it is random, do you understand what it is that you are disagreeing with? Once again, I am not saying that ANY process that exists right now is random (like quantum phenomena), so merely stating that “we don’t know” is irrelevant as I am not making objective observations.
My example is assuming that there is an objectively random process in the world, and currently the concept of objective randomness is not logically contradictory, so there should not be an argument from that. Perhaps I should ask you for a definition of objective randomness and unpredictability and if you believe that objective randomness (not epistemic randomness or unpredictability) is uncaused.
I must first ask what exactly you consider to be uncaused. If it is the outcome, then I have already covered that. If it is the process, then I must again say that the process is a description of the machine causing the outcome. Which is it?
I can understand how unpredictability works and how it is different from objective randomness…
But I am talking about the latter, and make no connection between the two terms. Can you define epistemic randomness/ unpredictability and objective randomness, because perhaps this may just be a difference in terms. The thought experiment assumes that the process is objectively random operates in a random manner. If something is objectively random, then it cannot be completely caused to a certain outcome. The process of the machine determining the outcome done randomly and thus the random number generator is uncaused to choose a particular outcome or number. But to head back to my original point, I just build the machine. I can turn it on, but I cannot control the result of the objectively random processes that follows, nor can any other cause, because it is (through the thought experiment) objectively random, so we cannot say that unpredictability is the issue here.
I have never said anything about that. I was making observations of objective randomness if anything. In my example, it assumes that the process is objectively random, which is one of the two possibilities that I have laid out before when describing how such a concept would work. Either the outcome is caused by nothing at all, or it is caused by a process that operates in an objectively random manner. Certainly the objectively random process is uncaused to one particular outcome? Lets try starting from here.
Perhaps the use of the word “random result” may lead to the contradiction that you seem to see. The machine’s processes are again random, and how the number generator determines what number would come out is done in an objectively random manner, and therefore it is nomologically possible for other options to be chosen.
Random machine process —> Result 1 or Result 2
If time was rewound such that there is an identical process, then we cannot say that an identical result would occur, because the process is objectively random, and is not caused to that limited outcome. That is what objective randomness is, and it cannot be explained through a limitation of knowledge, because once again, I have already explained how it does not apply as we are only discussing the concept.
Kant proves the thesis that time must have a beginning by showing that if time had no beginning, then an infinity would have elapsed up until the present moment. This is a manifest contradiction because infinity cannot, by definition, be completed by “successive synthesis” – yet just such a finalizing synthesis would be required by the view that time is infinite; so the thesis is proven. Then he proves the antithesis, that time has no beginning, by showing that if time had a beginning, then there must have been “empty time” out of which time arose. This is incoherent (for Kant) for the following reason. Since, necessarily, no time elapses in this pretemporal void, then there could be no alteration, and therefore nothing (including time) would ever come to be: so the antithesis is proven. Reason makes equal claim to each proof, since they are both correct, so the question of the limits of time must be regarded as meaningless.
Infinity cannot be added to nor can such a process be completed; by definition. The present moment does not constitute a completion (“successive synthesis”?) of an infinite process as it simply represents the current manifestation of that process - which is ongoing. The precise “point” which the present “occupies” is unattainable to our senses and largely irrelevant.
The past did not disappear as a consequence to the existence of the present. The present is a manifestation of the past, the interactions of which cause change, measured in time.
This “present” is the consequence of a process of distinct events which regress backwards infinitely. It is this regression which is infinite.
This proposes a form of idealism where “parts” are things-in-themselves which combine to form a “whole” or state of completion which would refute an infinite process.
I have not proposed a linear nature to causality, such that it could arrive at a state of completion. Nice try…
How has it passed away when it has brought about the present as we perceive it; when the present is the current manifestation of this process?
Does not this entire perspective attempt to disprove infinity through the presupposition of the “passing away” of supposed “states” constituting finite objects, therefore necessitating a contradiction?
Where is any such Thing that could be considered finite?
“Time” is not some existent on its own with intrinsic identity or property - time is merely the relative measure of a change. Nothing more. If energy exists, which it is clear that it does, then that energy, being indestructible, is also “beyond time” in the absolute. Time only applies relatively - it makes no sense to speak of the “time of existence”, be it the length of this time or its “beginning” or lack thereof.
Energy has no beginning, only forms have beginnings - and endings. Energy exists, we know, and we also know that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but merely changes forms. This is the essence of Kant’s critique; that the idea of time itself cannot be meaningfully applied to the entirety of existence. . . . the notion of time has no meaning when applied to entireties.
So, as I stated, this thread is useless nonsense. One does not need to speak absolutely of “causality” to entertain the falsehoods which you spew here. You misuse the concept of time such that it is, under your meaning, twisted into a self-contradiction. There is no infinity, no infinite regress of “causality”, and certainly the question of the “beginning of time” is nonsensical to the point where even the refutation of such nonsense is silly.
If you think for yourself, outside of your predetermined conceptions, you might realise that you are only speaking nonsense here. The fact that you even had to post this thread, let alone think there is anything profound in your observations here regarding “time”, speaks only to how far your reason has yet to go.
The concept of objective randomness I understand … you need not repeat it.
The Copenhagen Interpretation is also known to me… but not intimately…
Given objective randomness, causality would be unpredictable as any event could give any result.
But this result would still require a causative factor to bring it about, yes?
Is that what you’re looking for with this thought experiment?
I am forced to the conclusion that a specific series of events generates a specific conclusion.
Therefore, if a process can generate 2 or more different results from a -perceived- identical starting condition I must assume that either:
there are hidden variables of which I am ignorant or,
the result is not due to the process itself (at least not entirely) and is uncaused (or partly uncaused), or
it is objectively random in that for some unspecified reason a distinct process is capable of generating different outcomes.
I would choose 1 as I assume that indeterminancy is not the case and that all processes are predictable, given sufficient knowledge.
This is an assumption, I grant you that, but considering that knowledge of the universe is incomplete I feel unjustified in making another assumption - namely that not all processes can ever come to be predictable.
If 3, then I do not see the application that objective randomness in causality would have upon regression. This randomness is still caused, you admit… but random in that there is no possibility that the outcome is predictable or could be predictable.
If it is uncaused to choose a particular outcome or number, do you have any thoughts on how a specific outcome or number is generated, or is it simply that a given process produces variable results irregardless of circumstances?
If the outcome or number are uncaused, as you seem to suggest, is the machine’s presence a requirement for their generation?
Is it that the numbers or outcome are both caused and uncaused at the same time?
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}