“Infinite” simply denotes an undetermined amount of possibilities.
I should have known…what a good wife you would have been for him.
(Inter)actions create frictions, attrition, congruences…
Even molecules are active…as modern physics talks about vibrating strings…very poetic.
Someone defined a philosopher as a cross between a scientist and a poet.
You should become wary when a retard starts supporting you; their image of one as the provider of their emotional need for vengeance upon the thought(s) of another implies error…
You are asserting a dichotomy between the Thing (your “absolute” existence) and the activity of the Thing, which is change measured by time. I have stated that the perceivable universe is an infinite process; that, in order to be perceivable and to be considered to “exist”, undergoes inter(re)action. Inter(re)action (change) is therefore the definition of existence and not the condition of existence.
That I make no such dichotomy between an Actor and an Act (like “I” or the actions that “I” perform; as above) but language does… is one more element of my position that you have failed to grasp and an illuminating demonstration of the nature of your thought; and of the walls within which it grazes…
That I make no postulation of the universe as any such Thing … has also eluded you.
If it is as you describe, then it has limits which can be transgressed, as Super-Man suggested to the priest. Change should also be impossible, since existence would not alter; being unable to move in “time”.
Existence as a form… unusual for you? And contradictory?
Yes, I know, you said.
However, the possibility of such randomness as you describe can come only from quantum mechanics… which I regard as incomplete for just this reason.
It would seem to me that randomness and the appearance of the universe, randomly, both constitute an uncaused effect.
I do not find it contradictory as a concept.
But the value of a concept in is in it’s accuracy of description of what it refers to.
Why do you slander I, apoasha? Why do you negate your own existence? Are you scared of yourself and your reflection within the Universe? Doesn’t the implication of your own existence, apart from all, in defiance against all, necessarily negate all of your stupid metaphysical bullshit??? (Yes, of course it does.) Therefore, you do as the Christian does, and call ‘I’ a mere language device, an unnecessary screw-up. You then retort against Descartes as a slander against him, while simultaneously missing his point. Why does language evolve to divide ‘I’ from cognition, in the first place, you Satyrean? Do you even know? No more dodging the points (of Last Man). You will stand and deliver, now.
to OP
Just one thing; an infinite amount of finite?..
We cannot build up to infinity, we have to jump straight to supposed infinities as if considering them as ‘all in one bag’. this works in theory and in math, but not in terms of objects, with finite objects you have to literally attempt to build up to an infinite amount of them. We can get past this by working in ‘all-time’, so it is as if all the objects have already done this jump, yet are left with defining the cardinality of that. Without going into a long ole rant [like my objective infinite thread], lets just take it that an objective infinity is a whole and has no cardinality.
This being so, we can now imagine the infinite object as being both the first and last cause and effect at once.
So it goes like this;
infinite object>>>>universe>>>infinite object
This would be cyclic and omni-existent, so you can have as many instances of the infinite object [this alone would be singular] and manifestations from that, given no contradictions.
No.
If you’d been reading what I wrote, you’d know why. There is a reason I use the word process and deny finite thinghood.
Get out of my thread you blathering imbecile.
Don’t become a meanie. 
Just answer my questions instead, if you can.
There were questions in that horseshit?
Where is the noumenon “I” that you accuse me of denying?
It is simply thyself that you refuse to posit, don’t you see??? 
No, I don’t.
What is “I”?
What is “self”?
And how are either of these separate from the process of which they are the manifestation?
You assume that I deny my self because you have not understood what it is I am saying.
When I say “thought therefore existence” I do not support the convention of languages which declares a Actor (the subject) and an action which this Actor performs (the predicate).
“I” am the thought. “I” do not “have” a thought or “do” thinking.
That your mind is confined to the presupositions of language is wearingly obvious.
Your mind is such that you do not even realize that you are declaring a mind/body duality.
You do not even realize.
With anyone else, I would give the benefit of the doubt … but this is long-standing behaviour on your part.
.
Of course our knowledge of the universe is incomplete. It may always be. But we are only describing the concept of randomness and an uncaused cause. If you agree that the concept of random behaviour (an uncaused cause in its actions), then it is an example of an uncaused cause that is not face the problems of being uncaused (in its existence).
Well, I’m not making applications, just discussions of the concept. Mainly an uncaused cause being described as just being uncaused in what it will do (it behaves randomly) fulfills the notion that it is uncaused, but does not face the problem of a casua sui. Agree?
I agree that it works as a concept.
Yes, you do.
You want me to answer for you??? You want me to authorize your existence? Yes, so it seems.
If you had presumed “I exist” then you would’ve already known by now. But you didn’t!
Then you simply misunderstand the conception of “I think” and how this statement correlates to “I exist”. An amateur mistake, on your part.
Merely. You presume that you are not confined by language? Yet, you give me prepositions to expose. And I will expose them, along with you.
Where, boy??? Show me where I presupposed it. Now, you are guilty of what you just attempted to accuse me. It is not I who presupposes a non identification of “thought therefore existence”, because, I know the contradictions involved and implied by your statement. If you want to step out onto weak branches, unnecessarily, then be my guest. Now, if you actively want me to kick you off, then that is another matter entirely.
No benefit is necessary. Do you need help, at this point? Probably. Go get some. I will wait.
.
Sorry I only read the op [good thread btw].
Processes are collections of limits albeit not defined in absolute fashion like ‘finite’. do we not have to conceded there is an infinite ‘object’ [I only use the term to get past the mathematical complications]?
I don’t see how randomness gets past the problem, something has to cause it. The beginning of the universe is the least random event as it is singular until a tiny amount of time later when it begins to divide. I have yet to find anything that is actually random, for example; if you bounce a load of spheres off each other [like a lottery machine] it is only random in the enormity of calculating all the interactions.
Do the laws of randomness exist prior to the universe or as a result of it.
Randomness and Causality are not correlative processes, quetzalcoatl, that is your misunderstanding, and Apaosha’s as well.
Maybe, but first say why they are not, then tell us what they are as you see them.
I guarantee it wont ultimately make a difference.
On Causality : what causes the 8-ball to fall into the side pocket has NOTHING to do with what causes me to take a piss after I drink a few beers. Therefore, Causation is an application of logic that can apply to a given context, but nothing at all beyond that particular context. To correlate causes between events requires a different kind/type of logic, in order to synthesize events into a cohesive and understandable process, and the human brain is already capable of doing this, precognitively.
On Randomness : the very definition of ‘randomness’ is the very problem of correlating events together, in order to explain the cause of something, some event, or some action. Causality is then the result of Randomness, and our attempting to understand events, in order to predict them. And Causality does a great job of dispelling randomness RIGHT UNTIL we are forced into comparing the causes of one thing/action/event to another thing/action/event. The human mind cannot do this, apparently. Why not? As I will state, the human brain cannot accomplish this feat because it is impossible in the first place. Causality is not the problem, however. The problem is, using Causality to explain these so called “uncaused” events. And the next problem is including time and spatial dimensions into our basic understanding. Because, if time has no beginning, or end, then Causality becomes inefficient as a logic, as a method for understanding (events) and how to predict them.
I believe that I just did, sufficiently.
Maybe. It made a difference to me at least.
I would suggest that these “limits” you describe are interchangeable with TheLastMan’s notion of Forms; or “Thingness”.
Consider that all such concepts exist to compare and contrast differing perception but do not refer to static objects, since all that is perceivable is a temporary manifestation of a constant process.
So, these concepts have limits in that they refer to phenomena manifesting within certain parameters …
Since there is no such Thing, as change/mutability/interaction is the definition of existence (as it allows phenomena to be perceived).
There is an infinite “process”, not an “object”, as this assumes an extent. Outside of which…?
I said it works as a concept, as a thought experiment; not that it has any application.
You will have to ask TIMBER what the point of it was.
Stating the moon is made of cheese is also fine as a concept. But it has no application because it does not refer to anything real in that it cannot be demonstrated.
Similarily, stating Capitalized Interest/realunoriginal is intelligent does not work as a concept since it cannot be demonstrated.
If a premise cannot be demonstrated, it must be considered to be untrue. Therefore, one could state that truth is in fact simply the measure of the accuracy of a premise…
To be considered “real” or “true” something must be demonstrated (by being perceivable); so it must be capable of interaction; so it must be subject to change; so it must be a process.
Saying that it is “part” of a process implies boundaries that do not exist.
Indeed they belong to separate processes, naturally.
Both the 8 ball and you taking a piss belong to causal streams. We could estimate that there was probably a single or limited tree to which all causal branches derive, ~ if it were not for the fact that in the quantum soup we get new trees arising all the time. In short everything correlates at some juncture. We do have to factor improbability in, so no causality doesn’t build the complete picture. However we don’t have uncertainty until after the universe is existent.
Interesting point! I struggle to see ‘randomness in a void’ though? I see it as a result of causal things that become to great for structure?
In real world terms do we actually get uncaused events, or do they only occur on the quantum level, but then as soon as they interact with the causal world they become part of the chain of events. In other words improbability causes things on the quantum level to change unpredictably then re-emerges with atomic and macroscopic events and causal chains?
Time may have a beginning and end, or at least linear time may/must.
You could be right its certainly an interesting concept if we can get some measure of unpredictability into the apparent absolute of infinity. To this end how would you envision this within a pre-universe ‘space’?