Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

Randomness does not exist in actuality.
Such examples we call random are simply instances of effects too difficult to predict.
Take the most simple thing; the toss of a coin.

Flip a coin! Once it has left the thumb it has all the information it needs. The result is set but difficult to predict. To predict which side it would land on you would need to know the spin, speed, trajectory, air resistance, qualities of the table, such as reflective energy, bounce, and the fraction qualities of the surface.
The problem here would be that to measure these things would alter the values. Nonetheless there is no room for what we might call "true randomness".

Were we to go back in time to the moment of the flip; the coin would still act in the same way. How else could it act?

We can infer the truth of this statement from what we know about the predictability and uniformity of the universe which has heretofore enabled science to work.

Throw a dice a million times and each of the six numbers yield similar results, whose ration comes closer to 1/6th of the results the more times you throw.

[Sculptor1]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

If we assume the premise, we still do not know if the universe ever "began".
If the universe "began" then the cause of the Universe is susceptible of the same problem, ad infinitem.

[GE Morton]

Randomness does not exist in actuality.

You can't male that claim either, for the same reason one cannot claim an event was "truly random"" (i.e., without cause). Unless you're omniscient and know the causes of all events, the possibility remains open that some of them had no cause.

[Sculptor1]

Randomness does not exist in actuality.

You can't male that claim either, for the same reason one cannot claim an event was "truly random"" (i.e., without cause). Unless you're omniscient and know the causes of all events, the possibility remains open that some of them had no cause.

I can make that statement.
Were such a thing to exist it ought to be possible to demonstrate it, please do so.

[d3r31nz1g3]

If the universe had an origin, then a cause would be required. It would not be required if the universe (in some form) has always existed (and thus had no origin).

According to the big bang, that cause is basic mathematical counting and mathematical patterns which caused a sudden mathematical explosion.

The universe most certainly has not always existed.

If we assume the premise, we still do not know if the universe ever "began".
If the universe "began" then the cause of the Universe is susceptible of the same problem, ad infinitem.

The big bang is proven by basic mathematical patterns, according to math and science. So according to math and science, we do know the universe began.

There is no quandary in the beginning of the universe. It's a simple mathematical count of the most fundamental particle--mathematical points.

You can't male that claim either, for the same reason one cannot claim an event was "truly random"" (i.e., without cause). Unless you're omniscient and know the causes of all events, the possibility remains open that some of them had no cause.

This is not true. We can know if things are possible or not. It is impossible to have left without right. It is impossible to have a future without a past or present.

Random is impossible. This is because there exists no mathematical function to explain how it works--furthermore, there is no possible physical explanation for a random thing.

As in, I can explain how a combustion engine works. I absolutely CANNOT explain how random works. That's because random doesn't exist.

I can make that statement.
Were such a thing to exist it ought to be possible to demonstrate it, please do so.

Exactly.

[Sculptor1]

If we assume the premise, we still do not know if the universe ever "began".
If the universe "began" then the cause of the Universe is susceptible of the same problem, ad infinitem.

The big bang is proven by basic mathematical patterns, according to math and science. So according to math and science, we do know the universe began.

There is no quandary in the beginning of the universe. It's a simple mathematical count of the most fundamental particle--mathematical points.

You can't male that claim either, for the same reason one cannot claim an event was "truly random"" (i.e., without cause). Unless you're omniscient and know the causes of all events, the possibility remains open that some of them had no cause.

This is not true. We can know if things are possible or not. It is impossible to have left without right. It is impossible to have a future without a past or present.

Random is impossible. This is because there exists no mathematical function to explain how it works--furthermore, there is no possible physical explanation for a random thing.

As in, I can explain how a combustion engine works. I absolutely CANNOT explain how random works. That's because random doesn't exist.

I can make that statement.
Were such a thing to exist it ought to be possible to demonstrate it, please do so.

Exactly.

THe cosmology of the universe and its "beginning" (if such a thing happened) has always been the subject of much contention and changing views.
The chance that after at least 3000 years of discussion on the matter we might have finally landed the exact truth is not very likely.
And there is no doubt that aside from the BB there remain many other solutions, all of which "save the appearances", every bit as well as the BB.
The possibility that the BB might have banged into a preexisting universe is possible.
The BB is far from "proven" and there is still a massive question of dark matter and dark energy yet to be resolved.

[d3r31nz1g3]

If we assume the premise, we still do not know if the universe ever "began".
If the universe "began" then the cause of the Universe is susceptible of the same problem, ad infinitem.

The big bang is proven by basic mathematical patterns, according to math and science. So according to math and science, we do know the universe began.

There is no quandary in the beginning of the universe. It's a simple mathematical count of the most fundamental particle--mathematical points.

You can't male that claim either, for the same reason one cannot claim an event was "truly random"" (i.e., without cause). Unless you're omniscient and know the causes of all events, the possibility remains open that some of them had no cause.

This is not true. We can know if things are possible or not. It is impossible to have left without right. It is impossible to have a future without a past or present.

Random is impossible. This is because there exists no mathematical function to explain how it works--furthermore, there is no possible physical explanation for a random thing.

As in, I can explain how a combustion engine works. I absolutely CANNOT explain how random works. That's because random doesn't exist.

I can make that statement.
Were such a thing to exist it ought to be possible to demonstrate it, please do so.

Exactly.

THe cosmology of the universe and its "beginning" (if such a thing happened) has always been the subject of much contention and changing views.
The chance that after at least 3000 years of discussion on the matter we might have finally landed the exact truth is not very likely.
And there is no doubt that aside from the BB there remain many other solutions, all of which "save the appearances", every bit as well as the BB.
The possibility that the BB might have banged into a preexisting universe is possible.
The BB is far from "proven" and there is still a massive question of dark matter and dark energy yet to be resolved.

What you are saying is not true at all. The specifics and details of the big bang and what followed in the formulation of the cosmos is still a work in progress, but the big bang is not at all a matter of authentic contention and changing view.



The big bang is predicated in the above geometrical pattern. Mathematical counting from a central point, circling outwards, formulating the basic shapes with sharp one-dimensional points, and then splaying outwards immediately discovering the color spectrum in a violent nuclear explosion.

There is no question in regards to this.

However, if you wish to question whether or not all science through the billions of years towards original event is a "deception of some sort trailing backwards", I actually am open to questioning the big bang from that angle.

And I in fact do.

[Sculptor1]

If we assume the premise, we still do not know if the universe ever "began".
If the universe "began" then the cause of the Universe is susceptible of the same problem, ad infinitem.

The big bang is proven by basic mathematical patterns, according to math and science. So according to math and science, we do know the universe began.

There is no quandary in the beginning of the universe. It's a simple mathematical count of the most fundamental particle--mathematical points.

You can't male that claim either, for the same reason one cannot claim an event was "truly random"" (i.e., without cause). Unless you're omniscient and know the causes of all events, the possibility remains open that some of them had no cause.

This is not true. We can know if things are possible or not. It is impossible to have left without right. It is impossible to have a future without a past or present.

Random is impossible. This is because there exists no mathematical function to explain how it works--furthermore, there is no possible physical explanation for a random thing.

As in, I can explain how a combustion engine works. I absolutely CANNOT explain how random works. That's because random doesn't exist.

I can make that statement.
Were such a thing to exist it ought to be possible to demonstrate it, please do so.

Exactly.

THe cosmology of the universe and its "beginning" (if such a thing happened) has always been the subject of much contention and changing views.
The chance that after at least 3000 years of discussion on the matter we might have finally landed the exact truth is not very likely.
And there is no doubt that aside from the BB there remain many other solutions, all of which "save the appearances", every bit as well as the BB.
The possibility that the BB might have banged into a preexisting universe is possible.
The BB is far from "proven" and there is still a massive question of dark matter and dark energy yet to be resolved.

What you are saying is not true at all. The specifics and details of the big bang and what followed in the formulation of the cosmos is still a work in progress, but the big bang is not at all a matter of authentic contention and changing view.



The big bang is predicated in the above geometrical pattern. Mathematical counting from a central point, circling outwards, formulating the basic shapes with sharp one-dimensional points, and then splaying outwards immediately discovering the color spectrum in a violent nuclear explosion.

There is no question in regards to this.

However, if you wish to question whether or not all science through the billions of years towards original event is a "deception of some sort trailing backwards", I actually am open to questioning the big bang from that angle.

And I in fact do.

Utter nonsense.

[d3r31nz1g3]

The big bang is proven by basic mathematical patterns, according to math and science. So according to math and science, we do know the universe began.

There is no quandary in the beginning of the universe. It's a simple mathematical count of the most fundamental particle--mathematical points.



This is not true. We can know if things are possible or not. It is impossible to have left without right. It is impossible to have a future without a past or present.

Random is impossible. This is because there exists no mathematical function to explain how it works--furthermore, there is no possible physical explanation for a random thing.

As in, I can explain how a combustion engine works. I absolutely CANNOT explain how random works. That's because random doesn't exist.



Exactly.

THe cosmology of the universe and its "beginning" (if such a thing happened) has always been the subject of much contention and changing views.
The chance that after at least 3000 years of discussion on the matter we might have finally landed the exact truth is not very likely.
And there is no doubt that aside from the BB there remain many other solutions, all of which "save the appearances", every bit as well as the BB.
The possibility that the BB might have banged into a preexisting universe is possible.
The BB is far from "proven" and there is still a massive question of dark matter and dark energy yet to be resolved.

What you are saying is not true at all. The specifics and details of the big bang and what followed in the formulation of the cosmos is still a work in progress, but the big bang is not at all a matter of authentic contention and changing view.



The big bang is predicated in the above geometrical pattern. Mathematical counting from a central point, circling outwards, formulating the basic shapes with sharp one-dimensional points, and then splaying outwards immediately discovering the color spectrum in a violent nuclear explosion.

There is no question in regards to this.

However, if you wish to question whether or not all science through the billions of years towards original event is a "deception of some sort trailing backwards", I actually am open to questioning the big bang from that angle.

And I in fact do.

Utter nonsense.

Wow. Save face more, please.

I clearly demonstrated that the big bang is absolutely scientifically and mathematically proven by relating it to basic mathematical patterns.

The exact details are subject to debate. Not the big bang itself.

[GE Morton]

Randomness does not exist in actuality.

You can't male that claim either, for the same reason one cannot claim an event was "truly random"" (i.e., without cause). Unless you're omniscient and know the causes of all events, the possibility remains open that some of them had no cause.

I can make that statement.
Were such a thing to exist it ought to be possible to demonstrate it, please do so.

Sorry, but you can't prove a negative. Claiming that "true randomness" is impossible is to claim that all things have a cause. The burden of proof there rests upon you.

[GE Morton]

If the universe had an origin, then a cause would be required. It would not be required if the universe (in some form) has always existed (and thus had no origin).

According to the big bang, that cause is basic mathematical counting and mathematical patterns which caused a sudden mathematical explosion.

Sorry, but no mathematical patterns or counting, being non-material, conceptual structures, can be the cause of any physical phenomena.

The universe most certainly has not always existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

[d3r31nz1g3]

Randomness does not exist in actuality.

You can't male that claim either, for the same reason one cannot claim an event was "truly random"" (i.e., without cause). Unless you're omniscient and know the causes of all events, the possibility remains open that some of them had no cause.

I can make that statement.
Were such a thing to exist it ought to be possible to demonstrate it, please do so.

Sorry, but you can't prove a negative. Claiming that "true randomness" is impossible is to claim that all things have a cause. The burden of proof there rests upon you.

A combustion engine can be explained in how it works.
Step by step.

There exists no step by step process by which random can be explained.

This is a basic and self-evident logical concept. If something is TRULY random, then what trackable process could lead to it's explanation? That would be impossible because it's totally random.

You just told me that I can't prove a negative... but the subject is something that is RANDOM. NOTHING can explain RANDOM. It's RANDOM.

RANDOM is self-evidently impossible...

Sorry, but no mathematical patterns or counting, being non-material, conceptual structures, can be the cause of any physical phenomena.

The following image proves the big bang.
And yes a mathematical process is the origination of the big bang.

One dimensional mathematical points began counting from a central point.
This occurred because a natural counting pattern exists as demonstrated in the above image.
One dimensional points are invisible.
Once two points were counted, something was visible because a small line was formed.
In a count of three, a triangle formed from the central point.
Then a square immediately formed from said point.
Then a pentagon immediately formed.
Then a hexagon.
Then a heptagon.
Then an octagon.
After this, the shapes obscured and began infinitely circling in to a circle.
This is because the number pi is pre-encoded.

The energetic blast spread out at the speed of light, immediately discovering the color spectrum amidst the rays in reflections.

The number pi literally proves the big bang as does the above mathematical pattern.

The big bang is a very simple "theory" and it's mathematically proven. However, it's so contentious that the simple truth of it is obscured amongst public discourse. It's actually a very, very simple thing.

[d3r31nz1g3]

Random does not exist.

[GE Morton]

There exists no step by step process by which random can be explained.

This is a basic and self-evident logical concept. If something is TRULY random, then what trackable process could lead to it's explanation? That would be impossible because it's totally random.

You just told me that I can't prove a negative... but the subject is something that is RANDOM. NOTHING can explain RANDOM. It's RANDOM.

RANDOM is self-evidently impossible...

That is a non sequitur. Yes, a random event is one which is inexplicable. But that it is inexplicable doesn't imply that it is impossible (and that conclusion is certainly not "self-evident").

[GE Morton]

The following image proves the big bang.

Really? LOL.

And yes a mathematical process is the origination of the big bang.

One dimensional mathematical points began counting from a central point.

Egads. Who is doing this "counting"? Mathematical points, being abstract, theoretical fictions which exist only in the minds of sentient creatures, do not do any "counting." Only sentient creatures count.

BTW, cyclic theories don't deny the BB. They view it as one of the transition points in an eternal cyclic process, the "Big Crunch" being the other.