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

[Belindi]

Is there chaos or cosmos?

If chaos, then each event is a random event: if cosmos, then each event is a necessary event.

[value]

Pure chaos and pure randomness might be considered the same. However, within those concepts 'an event' would be impossible in my opinion.

How would 'an event' be possible in pure chaos?

[Pattern-chaser]

...you are making the claim, "There is no such thing as true randomness," and hence the burden of proof is on you.

No. There is no "burden of proof".

Huh? The proponent of a thesis has no burden of proof?

Correct. This is a discussion, not an interrogation. We all choose to take part, and we all offer what we have to offer to the discussion.

However, if I regularly, perhaps continually, offer ungrounded assertions, I would expect that my fellow contributors would start to place less importance on my outpourings. This is a co-operative conversation, enabled by Scott's generosity in providing this forum for us to talk within. There is no "burden" of proof, or any other burden, placed upon any of us.

If a contributor cannot offer justification for their position, that position will (reasonably) be devalued in the eyes of their fellow contributors. That's as close as we get to 'burdens'.

[Pattern-chaser]

To what extent do people here see this question as connected with the question of determinism?

I didn't. But now, thanks to your question, I do. If an event is random, it has no obvious cause*. Determinism relies on all effects having a cause, so that, in theory at least, everything can be predicted, and therefore all is 'determined'.

My opinion —and that's all it is! — is that a random event could be un-caused, and I don't have a problem with that. Not all events are uncaused. I can see this because some degree of prediction (of the world and its doings) is possible, because I have learned to do this, as we all have. But I see no clear reason why there should not be un-caused events (effects) too, of which a random event might be an example.



* — No "obvious" cause, perhaps, but does this mean no actual cause, or that the actual cause is unclear to us?

[Pattern-chaser]

Is there chaos or cosmos?

If chaos, then each event is a random event: if cosmos, then each event is a necessary event.

In that case, both?

[3017Metaphysician]

No, that would be more like complete chaos, in principle anyway. Otherwise, you'd still have problems with causation since randomness itself has its own language of causation. You know, the information narrative.

What "language of causation" is that? This "information narrative" of yours is a spurious conceptual construct with no more substance or explanatory utility than "godditit."

Understand! Information itself is not an exclusive material thingy. You know, it's kind of like abstract mathematics. Almost akin to metaphysical idealism!

Anyway, GE, since you're back from time-out, Moma said it was ok for you to spend some quality time with us now. As such, did you get a change to reconcile the matter narrative yet?

[Pattern-chaser]

Pure chaos and pure randomness might be considered the same. However, within those concepts 'an event' would be impossible in my opinion.

How would 'an event' be possible in pure chaos?

Possible? Probably, yes. But predictable? Presumably not. I suspect that, in "pure chaos", an 'event' might be difficult even to recognise?

[GE Morton]

To what extent do people here see this question as connected with the question of determinism?

If both randomness and determinism are universalized then they are logically antithetical. But there is no need, and no grounds, for universalizing them. I.e., the universe may be largely, but not entirely, deterministic.

[value]

Is there chaos or cosmos?

If chaos, then each event is a random event: if cosmos, then each event is a necessary event.

In my opinion pure randomness implies 'value-less' and thus practical meaningless-ness and not applicability of the idea of randomization to actual content of repeatable (empirical) nature. That would imply that the alternative does not imply determinism of 'necessariness' of events or 'machine like' nature of conscious creatures but a priori applicability of 'meaning' (which from the perspective of 'the repeatable world' would be 'pure meaning' or meaning that cannot be valued).

[d3r31nz1g3]

To what extent do people here see this question as connected with the question of determinism?

I do.

Random is absolutely impossible as evidenced by the pictures I have presented. However this leads to several logical problems.

The problem is that even though random is absolutely impossible, there are things in the world that make us think that it certainly must. Such as human lives produced through evolution and sexual reproduction.

I mean, what, human lives just SEEM that random, but actual random doesn't exist?

Which is misleading. It's simply robotics and the krill I posted and it's simply a perplexing quandary.



Furthermore, the problem it leads to is this:

If random doesn't exist, then absolutely everything must be deterministic. Which would be a total prophecy. A total prophecy through evolution and sexual reproduction: that would mean people are birthed out the womb by destiny.



That's because total prophecy is the case. Robotics.

This is irrational but is the case.

[GE Morton]

If a contributor cannot offer justification for their position, that position will (reasonably) be devalued in the eyes of their fellow contributors. That's as close as we get to 'burdens'.

That is all that the "burden of proof" means --- i.e., that the proponent of a thesis has an intellectual obligation to supply evidence or arguments for his claim.

[d3r31nz1g3]

If one thinks evolution, sexual reproduction, and human life must imply the existence of random...

It does not. Through all evolution, humans are a pre-encoded mathematical form and random absolutely doesn't exist.

Especially since the Big Bang began with a pre-encoded counting pattern.

Or if one thinks that "random is a concept I can conceive, with apparent randomness all around us" or "why wouldn't it simply be random if I can conceive it and it very appears to be so"...

Transforming in to a dinosaur is also a concept I can conceive of, but is reserved for the silver screen.

Some things massively appear to be so and some things are easily imaginable, yet aren't. Like things that can only happen in movies.

Such is random.

[GE Morton]

Random is absolutely impossible as evidenced by the pictures I have presented.

I'm completely mystified as to why you imagine those pictures have anything at all to do with the question of the thread.

???

[d3r31nz1g3]

The mathematical nature of robotics and the existence of pre-encoded forms like triangles or the color spectrum imply random doesn't exist.

[Belindi]

Is there chaos or cosmos?

If chaos, then each event is a random event: if cosmos, then each event is a necessary event.

In that case, both?

But Cosmos and Chaos are mutually exclusive.