As Elroch so eloquently just explained...
mathematical probabilities can be used to explain anything and everything.
Used to validate both spectrums- narrow or broad.
And know what? I agree
Mathematics is a great tool. It can be used to make abstract sense of it all. To make comparisons.
Where we disagree- mathematics is just that, and is not a real description of reality- the physical world that behaves in its own manner. Drawing conclusions based on only abstract thought is an error imo.
actually, only if u threw the dice infinate times, it would land on each # 1 time out of 6, on average. if u threw finite amount, there could be any # of different possibilities.
u dont know that. u only think that.
"D and R are abstract concepts- they do not exist as physical properties"
thats true from an objective pov. but if anyone want to claim that true randomness is more than just unsound belief, they must demonstrate a physical mechanism capable of defeating causality.
unfortunately we dont know of such mechanism. even QM which is the most successful physics we have, dont offer such a mechanism. you could say that free will do, and i will personally agree. but that is a subjective pov, incompatible with matterialism/naturalism. and yea.. so far so good.
That simply does not make sense. The best it manages is to hide in the vagueness of almost everything referred to.
Randomness is about absolute unpredictability. Quantum mechanics provides simple examples. For example, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - itself a result from Fourier Analysis - implies that it is always impossible to predict the future position of an free particle accurately (with the inaccuracy always increasing with time). It also provides a more subtle demonstration that this impossibility is not merely because we do not know enough.
As Elroch so eloquently just explained...
mathematical probabilities can be used to explain anything and everything.
Used to validate both spectrums- narrow or broad.
And know what? I agree
Mathematics is a great tool. It can be used to make abstract sense of it all. To make comparisons.
Where we disagree- mathematics is just that, and is not a real description of reality- the physical world that behaves in its own manner. Drawing conclusions based on only abstract thought is an error imo.
Mathematics is how we express all our knowledge of the physical world. As such mathematical reasoning leads from knowledge to what is implied by that knowledge. This is more important we have a lot more knowledge than we do about abiogenesis!
Arithmetic is just theory. we call it the real world for a reason. we dont call it the 'theory' world. so go ahead and apply arithmetic as ur art form.. knock urself out. just dont trust it...unless ur gullible dum.
"knock urself out. just dont trust it...unless ur gullible dum." lol
Self-propaganda is a form of propaganda that refers to the act of an individual convincing them-self of something, no matter how irrational that idea may be.[73] Self propaganda makes it easier for individuals to justify their own actions as well as the actions of others. Self-propaganda works oftentimes to lessen the cognitive dissonance felt by individuals when their personal actions or the actions of their government do not line up with their moral beliefs.[74] Self-propaganda is a type of self deception.[75] Self-propaganda can have a negative impact on those who perpetuate the beliefs created by using self- propaganda.[75]
elroch:"Quantum mechanics provides simple examples. For example, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle"
do you really believe that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle defeat causality?
You seem confused. Causality is one of the cornerstones of scientific understanding. We were talking about examples of "true randomness".
You seem confused. Causality is one of the cornerstones of scientific understanding. We were talking about examples of "true randomness".
youre playing silly word juggling games again, and back to obfuscating TR. lets try again..
do you really believe that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle defeat causality?
in other words.. how do you break from causality to justify your belief that QM is not deterministic?
We need to speak the same language for us to have a discussion.
I said "Randomness is about absolute unpredictability. Quantum mechanics provides simple examples."
It seems obvious I meant "examples of absolute unpredictability" (and I did).
You (wrongly) suggest "absolute unpredictability" involves counterexamples to "causality". No physicist would agree.
You are confusing "determinism" (the absence of randomness) with "causality" (which is that information propagates forward in time. i.e. in a relativistic universe, the transmission of information is bounded by the future light cone). If you don't know this, please read the article Causality (physics), that will bring you up to date.
I can see now that you may be using "causality" in the way Hume might have in the 18th century, but understanding of the world has advanced to require a more precise meaning. The world is not like people thought it was in the 18th century, and an 18th century way of thinking about it is no longer precise enough. Until the 20th century people could still imagine the world was deterministic, but that stopped being so with improved knowledge.
I do not see the “dualism” spoken of.
Probably because I’m a big advocate that dualism falsely represents reality.
Seems I’m constantly pointing out proposed concepts are dualistic in nature and do not describe the physical world (which is often dualistic at 1st appearance)
You are correct - I do separate the mind from everything else. A better term is “consciousness “.
Recent experiments have shown thoughts can be measured and perhaps possess physical properties. I suspect this to be true. But at the same time I believe consciousness to be existential.
Comments get made and labels attached as someone being a materialist or believes in D when in fact the author simply used terminology easily misunderstood.
I like the way reality can be represented by dualism. For instance, we understand that things exist and are as they are, even though we might not understand what they are. Then again, we develop impressions of how things are, which are often influenced by how we think they should be.
Heaven and Earth, Absolute and Relative, bright and obscured.
....and to go any further breaks the ridiculous rules that cause even such obscurity.
It's the basis of pure logic, however.
elroch.. this is just more of the same. lets rephrase my Q. and this time lets use the one definition we already agreed upon. determinism.
"Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law"
why do you believe that QM is not deterministic?
another Q. is why do you think that D has anything to do with predictability? after all D and TR are in the same equation, but thats secondary.. and only if you wont use it to avoid the above.
It's The Basis Of Pure Logic... etc.
......but.. you like reality’s opposition??
............... it has n e v e r been a thing in relation to all that is Good!
More evenly distributions are more common. For a reasonable number of rolls, sufficiently uneven distributions are very uncommon.
For example, the chance that you roll zero 6s from rolling N dice is (5/6)**N. When N is reasonably big, this gets very small. For example, it's about 1 in 80 million for 100 rolls.
The same is true for any bias (eg "less than 10% 6s" becomes very uncommon eventually).
Nice rebuttal.
However, I’ll elude to your explanation of how Life started- by random chance. Despite the odds being much higher
Nobody knows how to express the question sufficiently accurately to calculate anything but a very, very crude estimate using a model which may be entirely misleading. That's a hard fact.
Nobody has a detailed knowledge of the entire range of microenvironments available in the first half billion years of planet Earth. That's a hard fact. It is necessary there was one such microenvironment (or a sequence of such) where life arose. To be more precise, it does not need to be confined to Earth, due to the the known possibility of panspermia.
Bottom line of the state of knowledge on the odds of life arising on a planet just like the early Earth is it could be virtually anything. That includes 99.99% and 1**-100. Both are consistent with all the facts, including life arising on Earth.
(random assembly of matter/DNA/RNA than given for the dice example - insistence is made such things are entirely possible because it happened.
Appears as the same argument is used in validating both competing sides.
That something is so uncommon as not to be feasible- but when another thing is believed to be true- the uncommon becomes meaningless. It’s as if you pick and choose descriptions of how the universe operates, using numbers/probabilities randomly !