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

[d3r31nz1g3]

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").

But the above image of that krill visually proves the impossibility of random... it's apparent in physical structures...

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.

Mathematical points are not abstract. You don't understand. If one dimensional points are counted from zero, a central point, the basic shapes naturally and immediately formulate. Triangle, square, pentagon, hexagon, heptagon, octagon, circle.

[GE Morton]

But the above image of that krill visually proves the impossibility of random... it's apparent in physical structures...

I have no idea how you think that follows. A krill is not random. Most entities and events are not random. But that doesn't entail that randomness is impossible.

Mathematical points are not abstract. You don't understand. If one dimensional points are counted from zero, a central point, the basic shapes naturally and immediately formulate. Triangle, square, pentagon, hexagon, heptagon, octagon, circle.

Mathematical points are paradigms of abstract entities. The exist nowhere except in the minds of mathematicians.

"The problem being addressed is the challenge to the validity of one of the fundamental axioms of our geometry, namely, that a point is that of which there is no part. The thesis is that a point is an abstraction of the property of three dimensional geometrical objects that is place. The thesis contributes to the problem by affirming that a the concept of a point is valid, since it is merely an abstraction of a property, and does not exist physically."

https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/com ... n_of_what/

And, of course, mathematical abstractions do not do counting.

[d3r31nz1g3]

I have no idea how you think that follows. A krill is not random. Most entities and events are not random. But that doesn't entail that randomness is impossible.

RANDOMNESS is physically IMPOSSIBLE and does NOT exist.

Witness the physical nature of the robotical organism.
It's physical construct is NOT compatible with random.

RANDOM is impossible.
How could possibly explain RANDOM? It's RANDOM. There's no explanation for RANDOM for it is one in infinity RANDOM.

The impossibility of RANDOM is physically witnessable when looking upon robotics.

Mathematical points are paradigms of abstract entities. The exist nowhere except in the minds of mathematicians.

"The problem being addressed is the challenge to the validity of one of the fundamental axioms of our geometry, namely, that a point is that of which there is no part. The thesis is that a point is an abstraction of the property of three dimensional geometrical objects that is place. The thesis contributes to the problem by affirming that a the concept of a point is valid, since it is merely an abstraction of a property, and does not exist physically."

Once again:



There is a mathematical and physical trail originating from particle counting.

[GE Morton]

I have no idea how you think that follows. A krill is not random. Most entities and events are not random. But that doesn't entail that randomness is impossible.

RANDOMNESS is physically IMPOSSIBLE and does NOT exist.

*Sigh*

[value]

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".

The act of flipping the coin should not be neglected. "Once the coin has left the thumb" is not a sufficient ground for establishing determinability of the result.

How can it be said that the coin was flipped from an information point of view? From that perspective, the idea of applicability of randomness becomes applicable again, at least from a potential unpredictability perspective.

Can life be pre-determined? If not, then how can the coin?

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?

If - from the perspective of the coin - an a priori unpredictable factor is at play, how can it be said that in nature as a whole that factor isn't at play as well, fundamentally invalidating the idea that one can go back in time for an exact same result on each coin flip and making future predictions equally questionable?

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.

There is nothing known about the uniformity of the Universe. The success of science is not evidence. Throwing a dice for a few hundred years with a similar result doesn't prove anything either.

There are theories and studies that show that 'conscious creatures' of the future can change physical reality (causality) of the past.

(2019) Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-retrocausality/

Philosophers have incorporated the idea of cause and effect (causality) into their arguments for many centuries – many of them using it to justify their beliefs about the origins of the universe, even today. The concept describes how an event cannot happen unless it has been triggered by another event, which they believe must have happened in its past.

Contrary to well-established philosophical theories, chains of events do not necessarily need to play out within our limited, one-directional view of the flow of time. Backwards-in-time, or ‘retro’-causality, is where quantum mechanics allows for the occurrence of an event that has been triggered by another event occurring in its future.
https://www.scientia.global/dr-peter-ev ... cosmology/

[d3r31nz1g3]

Coin flipping is misleading somehow. Coin flipping operates under pseudo-random like a computer program.

First of all, the coin is not true random. It's 50/50 chance.

Secondly, the physical trail that leads to which side it lands on is purely deterministic.l and indeed it is.

The variable is a point in time variable: the specific circumstances that flipped the coin down the timeline.

I am of the position that the deterministic nature of the individual coin flip, the fact that it's 50/50 and it's not simply chance, the fact that pseudo-random is impossible necessarily leads to the absurd: everything MUST be a total robotic prophecy if true random is not at play. Which makes NO sense but that implication is necessary.

"Must be the billion Chinese".

[d3r31nz1g3]

Random is impossible because it's RANDOM. It's self-evident. Random has no trail to explain how the random thing occurred or existed.

Robotics itself reflects the impossibility of random.

Yet, we are humans born of the womb. We are, in fact, organic human robots which sounds like science fiction but is true.

We think there must be variability in a coin flip or a human life.

But robotics shows random is impossible and the concept of random is self-evidently impossible

Believe it or not, I am of the position:

That if there is no random, which there isn't, then there is no variability or chance at all. It's incompatible.

Variability is a mathematic function in application on computers. But if there is no true random, which is proven because random has no explanation and because robotics reflects the impossibility of random, then these variables must be absolutely illusory.

Therefore, everything is a total robot prophecy.

And yes it is. It's robots.

Consider flatulence.

[d3r31nz1g3]

I think the joke is getting lost in my poor presentation.

Random cannot be explained because it is truly random.
This face is physically reflected in the image I showed.
And yes it is.

I think that the absence of random in all reality necessarily means that all forms of variables are illusory.
And that everything MUST be deterministic.

There is no real solution to this logical problem.
There is nothing I don't or can't understand.

Therefore everything is a total robot prophecy in pure determism.
Must be flatulence. Does not compute.

Like the problem of solipsism, there is no possible logical solution to issues surrounding random. That is my position ad infinitum.

[d3r31nz1g3]

Four posts in a row is downright rude but I am really struggling to portray what I'm saying accurately. Upon reading over my prior posts, the irony of what I'm attempting to exemplify is getting lost in what I imagine the reader would mistranslate. So, to restate:

1. Random is inexplicable because it's... just totally random. It's self-evidently impossible. There's no explanation for something totally random. The image of krill I posted is reflecting this logical and physical law.
2. People find this nonsensical. For human life must be random, for a roll of dice must be changed.
3. Most people conclude there must be some greater complexity that isn't understood. A complexity in random number generation which apparently trails to it.
4. I disagree with this notion. I am of the position that the non-existence of true random necessarily leads to absolute determinism as a logical law. You know, like electronics and robotics. Beep bop boop. I think variability in mathematics is totally illusory and the trail leads nowhere as a logical law. All variability is actually just changing values over time and responding to that change. As in, what we call variables are just change.
5. Therefore, it's all somehow JUST robotics. "Beep bop boop, I am a robot, whirr whirr whirr, I operate according to my directives." Random, variability, and chance do not actually exist at all. Total robotical reality.
6. I am of this position by logical law, but the conclusion is absurd and not logical in and of itself.
7. It must be an "unsolvable paradox".

Therefore:

"Beep bop boop, I am robot, I operate by total prophecy. Stirr whirr whirrrr."
"There are a billion Chinese. Beep bop boop."
"It's all the absurdity of flatulence."

As in, random certainly doesn't exist, but I'm certain the logic of that must lead to determinism.Therefore, must be the absurdity of flatulence.

What I'm saying is I think the paradox is real and the problem of random has no solution other than robots, prophecy, and the absurdity of a human fart.

And it's tongue-in-cheek, self-aware, and simply an attempt to point out the incorrigibility of the entire discussion.

[Pattern-chaser]

There is no rational physical mechanism that which could explain a random action.

Brownian motion?

Brownian motion is the random motion of particles suspended in a medium (a liquid or a gas).

[d3r31nz1g3]

There is no rational physical mechanism that which could explain a random action.

Brownian motion?

Brownian motion is the random motion of particles suspended in a medium (a liquid or a gas).

I don't want to say you're just referencing an advanced physics concept without understanding the fundamental principles of logic... but it appears to be approaching that area.

If something is RANDOM it cannot be explained because it is RANDOM. I know the statement is circular but it's self-evident. If something is truly RANDOM, how could you ever explain how the random result is produced amongst the infinite potentials that could've been instead?



Random is IMPOSSIBLE and it's directly visually reflected by this image.

I'm sorry but what I've posted is conclusive. If you can't see that then I am at my personal limits to try to explain it better.

[value]

Random is impossible because it's RANDOM. It's self-evident. Random has no trail to explain how the random thing occurred or existed.

It is an interesting consideration however what would be the theoretical basis for the idea that a cause-less event is impossible? For example the supposition that within the scope of an infinite Universe an event is possible that allows to introduce a true unpredictable factor?

A real world example would be the way that CloudFlare - one of the biggest internet networking services - is introducing randomness to its encryption system using an array of Lava Lamps.

(2019) How Cloudflare Uses Lava Lamps to Generate Randomness
https://www.thesized.com/cloudflare-lav ... andomness/

Therefore, everything is a total robot prophecy.

And yes it is. It's robots.

The idea of fundamental impossibility of randomness does not need to imply meaningless or 'predetermined' machine like.

What can be determined is determinable by nature which within the scope of empirical science amounts to empirical 'repeatability'.

What theory could possibly provide validity for the idea that only that what is repeatable, is meaningfully relevant?

The idea of true randomness to be fundamentally impossible does not need to imply that consciousness is causally bound. True randomness isn't determined by the unavailability of a 'cause-less event' but by lack of meaning or the idea of 'true infinity (beginning-less)' to be applicable to a mathematical calculation, which is absurd.

[Sculptor1]

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.

[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.

Sorry, but you can't prove a negative.

Thanks for proving my point.
There is no such thing as pure randomness, and you cannot prove there is because it does not exist.
Please show your working

[GE Morton]

Sorry, but you can't prove a negative.

Thanks for proving my point.
There is no such thing as pure randomness, and you cannot prove there is because it does not exist.
Please show your working

Huh? Did you post before completing a sentence there?

But we've already covered what you seem to be claiming --- you are making the claim, "There is no such thing as true randomness," and hence the burden of proof is on you. Which you could only satisfy by demonstrating a cause for every entity and event, which would require omniscience. Since you're not omniscient and hence cannot so demonstrate, the possibility of "truly random" (uncaused) events remains open.