Is Randmoness Possible?

[Tricky]

Well it's Howdy Doody Time now isn't it?

If so, I think we all see who is playing Clarabell the Clown.

Was that somehow supposed to be a response to my comments, or just another example of your rapier wit?

The point is, if there is no such thing as chance -- albeit I don't refute its appearance -- how could this thing called a Universe have been conceived without some all-knowing "entity" or device? Indeed, because it would have been conceived -- or, the knowledge thereof would have been available -- right from the get-go. So, perhaps God "planted" the Universe, very much in the way a seed is planted which grows into a tree?

And indeed, those of who have seen your rather predictable act knew that this was where the discussion would wind up. You are not truly interested in randomness but only in reasserting your belief in God.



Well, Iacchus, we all know you believe in God. You further believe that randomness and chance are impossible and that everything, happens must have a "cause", that everything has an "absolute" and that the only alternative to God is believing that the universe came from nothing. You have stated these things over and over again, and you use each of your assumptions to further your other assumptions. I'm sure this circular reasoning seems perfectly sensible to you, because you are so certain that your assumptions are correct, in spite of the fact that they have more holes than the Albert Hall*. That much has been demonstrated by any number of people here.

But we can play this little game as long as you can. Your BS will not go unchallenged here. I recommend you try your luck at some "believer" boards where the standards of evidence and the insistance on demonstrating the validity of your assumptions is not so high. (I see you have your own boards, but they don't seem to be getting a lot of action these days. Perhaps you should ask yourself why.)

*Firesign Theater - How Can You Be In Two Places At Once When You're Not Anywhere At All

 

[Iacchus]

If so, I think we all see who is playing Clarabell the Clown.

Was that somehow supposed to be a response to my comments, or just another example of your rapier wit?

Obviously a response to something which doesn't deserve much of a reply.

 

[Mojo]

Obviously a response to something which doesn't deserve much of a reply.

In other words, a response to one of your posts. Couldn't have put it better myself.

 

[Iacchus]

Randomness means lack of pattern, which makes outcomes unpredictable!
A beam splitter in quantum mechanics is a truth random number generator of T, and R, because there is no pattern of Transmitted or Reflected electrons, which can be used to predict if the beam splitter will let the next electron, be transmitted or reflected! Randomness is the hallmark of quantum mechanics!

Or, so it would seem. So, what's to keep the Universe from morphing into something completely different from one moment to the next? If what you say is true, there would be no foundation to hold anything together.

 

[Iacchus]

In other words, a response to one of your posts. Couldn't have put it better myself.

Oh, and I thought you had nothing better to do than behave yourself in a "dignified manner." Please.

 

[Mojo]

Oh, and I thought you had nothing better to do than behave yourself in a "dignified manner."

Do you have any evidence supporting this particular belief of yours?

 

[Iacchus]

Well, Iacchus, we all know you believe in God. You further believe that randomness and chance are impossible and that everything, happens must have a "cause", that everything has an "absolute" and that the only alternative to God is believing that the universe came from nothing. You have stated these things over and over again, and you use each of your assumptions to further your other assumptions. I'm sure this circular reasoning seems perfectly sensible to you, because you are so certain that your assumptions are correct, in spite of the fact that they have more holes than the Albert Hall*. That much has been demonstrated by any number of people here.

Rubbish!

 

[Dorfl]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, what's to keep the Universe from morphing into something completely different from one moment to the next?

What keeps the universe from morphing like you say is that the various possible future universes are not themselves random, even though which one of them actually becomes real is.

 

[Iacchus]

Do you have any evidence supporting this particular belief of yours?

Just something I garnered from your location and your avatar, together with one or two of your previous posts.

 

[Mojo]

... one or two of your previous posts.

Links please!

 

[Iacchus]

Links please!

Really? I would just say, judging by your location and your avatar, you wish to present yourself as a dignified black man from the UK. This is what strikes me the most about it. Aside from that though (as far as I'm concerned), it's neither here nor there.

 

[Beerina]

Well it's Howdy Doody Time now isn't it?

The point is, if there is no such thing as chance -- albeit I don't refute its appearance -- how could this thing called a Universe have been conceived without some all-knowing "entity" or device? Indeed, because it would have been conceived -- or, the knowledge thereof would have been available -- right from the get-go. So, perhaps God "planted" the Universe, very much in the way a seed is planted which grows into a tree?

That's the problem. The world sits on Atlas, who's on pillars, which are on a turtle, which is on another turtle and "it's turtles all the way down."

True randomness doesn't make sense, but neither does the alternative -- an infinite chain of causality, either into the infinite path, or to the infinitely tiny.

Saying "God did it" just begs the question of how God came to be. If God "always existed", then why couldn't some kind of quantum weirdness have "always existed", with neither requiring a creation, i.e. a previous cause?

 

[Beerina]

Randomness means lack of pattern, which makes outcomes unpredictable!
A beam splitter in quantum mechanics is a truth random number generator of T, and R, because there is no pattern of Transmitted or Reflected electrons, which can be used to predict if the beam splitter will let the next electron, be transmitted or reflected! Randomness is the hallmark of quantum mechanics!

Randomness at the level of reality Einstein and Bohr argued at does not preclude us being in a gigantic deterministic simulator. Of course, that is exactly the concept of reality Einstein refused to give up on -- that there are objects out there in the real world, with real, measurable properties.

 

[Iacchus]

That's the problem. The world sits on Atlas, who's on pillars, which are on a turtle, which is on another turtle and "it's turtles all the way down."

True randomness doesn't make sense, but neither does the alternative -- an infinite chain of causality, either into the infinite path, or to the infinitely tiny.

Saying "God did it" just begs the question of how God came to be. If God "always existed", then why couldn't some kind of quantum weirdness have "always existed", with neither requiring a creation, i.e. a previous cause?

Thank you for at least posing your reply "intelligently." What if the Creator were in fact endowed with free will? Wouldn't that provide for the best of both worlds? Wherein that which is most highly evolved, becomes the cause, of which the rest becomes the effect? And, while it may not appear this way, I believe in compatiblism myself.

 

[Mercutio]

Thank you for at least posing your reply "intelligently."

Why the quotes? Are you using another Iacchian definition? If so, what does "intelligently" mean in this context? If not...why the quotes?

What if the Creator were in fact endowed with free will?

What if, indeed? How could one possibly know, even in principle? Is this "what if" testable in any way? Is it knowable in any way? Logically, of course, not even Iacchus could be sure--perhaps that is why the "what if".

Wouldn't that provide for the best of both worlds?

Which two worlds? Our real world and your fantasy world? Seriously, which two worlds?

Wherein that which is most highly evolved, becomes the cause, of which the rest becomes the effect?

What do you mean by "most highly evolved"? It is certainly not part of the theory of evolution by natural selection, so you may need to explain it. And how does it become a cause, of which all else is an effect? Are you suggesting (this is purely a guess), that the god you believe in is "highly evolved"?

And, while it may not appear this way, I believe in compatiblism myself.

I doubt you know what you believe. You are certainly unable to demonstrate your knowledge of your beliefs to others. You hold mutually incompatible ideas--do you pick and choose as you see fit?

 

[Iacchus]

Why the quotes? Are you using another Iacchian definition? If so, what does "intelligently" mean in this context? If not...why the quotes?

What if, indeed? How could one possibly know, even in principle? Is this "what if" testable in any way? Is it knowable in any way? Logically, of course, not even Iacchus could be sure--perhaps that is why the "what if".

I'm just trying to give a person the opportunity to think for themself, okay?

 

[Mercutio]

I'm just trying to give a person the opportunity to think for themself, okay?

Beerina was quite obviously already capable of thinking.


So, when people who stop and ask you how to get to the highway from where you are, do you give them just random directions, so they can think for themselves?

If you see a drowning kid, would you throw him a brick, so he can learn to swim for himself?

If you wish to help people think, please engage in some thinking yourself, and make sure your posts are clear. The questions I asked about your post are all things you could have easily addressed before you hit "submit". Had you done so, you'd still have been giving "a person the opportunity to think for themself".

 

[Iacchus]

Beerina was quite obviously already capable of thinking.

Yes, this is why I appreciated her responding "intelligently."

 

[P.S.A.]

The question is... Is Iacchus EVER able to think through his claims honestly. I mean, "Honestly", of course.

You see, his argument is very, very simple. He's assuming on your behalf what you actually believe with regards to randomness.

Although he doesn't have the "Honesty" to actually clearly say what he thinks we believe actually is.

But he has kindly agreed to partake of a little test of how wise his assumptions are in the Evolution/Religion test.

He has a 50% chance at least to guess what I believe in Randomness, yes or no.

Watch to see if he even dares to "honestly" take this simple test.

 

[P.S.A.]

Well, that didn't take long. So why don't you all have a nice little gamble on which particular way he dishonestly copped out was?

You've probably got 100% of guessing it though, so I won't be putting any "money" on it

"..." indicating, in the Iacchian mind it seems, emphasis. At least for today. He'll probably redefine it's use tomorrow...