• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views




    Page 1 of 12 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
    Results 1 to 25 of 291
    Like Tree6Likes

    Thread: Model Of Determinism.

    1. #1
      Reggie
      Join Date
      Nov 2009
      LD Count
      5
      Location
      Murhjiik
      Posts
      664
      Likes
      30

      Model Of Determinism.

      They say, if you stop the waffery of a butterfly then the whole world has changed because there was no waft on a certain day. It's a model for determinism. It shows that everything is appart of a cause of something. Perhaps, that butterfly could of gone into someones car, and frightened them and they had a car crash. Not preferably a butterfly, but you get the point.

      Thought's ?
      Jesus of Suburbia likes this.

    2. #2
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      You're talking about two pretty different things. The butterfly thing is about chaos and how complex systems are extremely sensetive to small changes. Determinism is just the idea that a system can only follow one course through time.

    3. #3
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Quote Originally Posted by Lucidness View Post
      They say, if you stop the waffery of a butterfly then the whole world has changed because there was no waft on a certain day. It's a model for determinism. It shows that everything is appart of a cause of something. Perhaps, that butterfly could of gone into someones car, and frightened them and they had a car crash. Not preferably a butterfly, but you get the point.

      Thought's ?
      I am a big believer in determinism, and I agree with the point of the scenario. Altering the course of the butterfly might not create a difference that is very noticeable to humans for a while, but it would definitely change the course of time permanently. I think that eventually the difference would lead to something so off the other course that we could see a huge difference if we could compare the two conceptual paths. Eventually, perhaps a butterfly offspring that would have otherwise been doesn't land on a window while a couple is talking, making it where their conversation doesn't go in the direction of insects, making it where the guy instead mentions somebody they didn't realize they both know, leading to calling that person to hang out with them that weekend, leading to that person meeting a friend of theirs and later marrying her. That perhaps affects the couple's blood line, and their great great great grandson might be an important politician who greatly changes national politics. There are all kinds of possibilities. What I am certain of is that the change would be permanent.
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    4. #4
      Master of Logic Achievements:
      1 year registered 5000 Hall Points Made Friends on DV Referrer Bronze Veteran First Class
      Kromoh's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Some rocky planet with water
      Posts
      3,993
      Likes
      86
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      You're talking about two pretty different things. The butterfly thing is about chaos and how complex systems are extremely sensetive to small changes. Determinism is just the idea that a system can only follow one course through time.
      Chaos theory is an extent of determinism. The thing about "stopping a butterfly" is just a model to help human minds comprehend the phenomenon. You can't really "stop the butterfly", because you're part of the system yourself. If you stopped the butterfly, it'd be because all the things previous to that action ended up making you do it -- aka determinism

      Determinism, chaos theory, catastrophe theory, complexity theory, entropy and energy, natural selection, and even sociology are all part of the same subject -- Systems Theory -- or more specifically, systemics. It is used to study and understand, well, systems in general. I use it a lot in biology classes at med school.
      ~Kromoh

      Saying quantum physics explains cognitive processes is just like saying geology explains jurisprudence.

    5. #5
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      Chaos theory is an extent of determinism.
      Not really.

      You can have probabilistic chaotic systems as well as deterministic ones.

    6. #6
      Member Koalaman's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2009
      Posts
      127
      Likes
      13
      I'm not a believer of determinism anymore. Ever since I found out that in quantum mechanics, when a quantum particle is in superposition it sort-of randomly chooses its actual position whenever a so-called "wave collapse" occurs. And random really means random here. This has some influence on the world. And since there's random influence on the world, it means that the world can't be deterministic.

    7. #7
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Quote Originally Posted by Koalaman View Post
      I'm not a believer of determinism anymore. Ever since I found out that in quantum mechanics, when a quantum particle is in superposition it sort-of randomly chooses its actual position whenever a so-called "wave collapse" occurs. And random really means random here. This has some influence on the world. And since there's random influence on the world, it means that the world can't be deterministic.
      I am 100% positive that the theory will eventually be shot down. I think quantum physicists have come to a point where they can't identify causes so they cop out and go, "Uh, it's random. We can't find the cause, so we theorize that there is not one." They are talking magic, like rabbits suddenly appearing out of hats and the Statue of Liberty suddenly disappearing. The requirement of cause is necessary for order. Without it, a hippo could crawl out of your sink and start humping Big Bird's leg. We would have an absurd universe. There would be so much stuff like that that our bodies would fall apart with Earth and everything else. The idea that anything could ever be uncaused is complete nonsense. Uncaused events are impossible. You can bet the farm on that. With a little more research, physicists are going to realize that they were talking out of their asses. Stay tuned.
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    8. #8
      Member Koalaman's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2009
      Posts
      127
      Likes
      13
      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind View Post
      I am 100% positive that the theory will eventually be shot down. I think quantum physicists have come to a point where they can't identify causes so they cop out and go, "Uh, it's random. We can't find the cause, so we theorize that there is not one." They are talking magic, like rabbits suddenly appearing out of hats and the Statue of Liberty suddenly disappearing. The requirement of cause is necessary for order. Without it, a hippo could crawl out of your sink and start humping Big Bird's leg. We would have an absurd universe. There would be so much stuff like that that our bodies would fall apart with Earth and everything else. The idea that anything could ever be uncaused is complete nonsense. Uncaused events are impossible. You can bet the farm on that. With a little more research, physicists are going to realize that they were talking out of their asses. Stay tuned.
      I'm really curious, but scared too. I was scared when I thought that the world was deterministic. It didn't seem like I had any sort of control. Whatever I did, it was meant to be. I could be lying in my bed all day all my life and it would simply be the only way things could possibly go.

      Anyway, the situation you're describing shouldn't necessary be the case. Probably only a really small part of all the matter is acting out on random, because the gravity limits the possible superpositions of quantum particles too much, which makes that there's only one possible position to go to for those quantum particles. So I don't think a hippo could be crawling out of my sink and humping Big Bird's leg. Or at least, it seems highly unlikely. I'd say randomness appears only at a much lower level. Like slight mutations in DNA.

    9. #9
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      Quantum physics doesn't suggest that things have no causes. In fact it describes an object known as a 'wavefunction' which describes possible events, which is exact and evolves in a deterministic manner, until it is observed. Probability does not infer chaos either. There are many real world or hypothetical examples you can easily come up with to show this. Nowhere does quantum physics predict macroscopic chaos like objects disappearing or our bodies randomly falling apart; quantum physics is consistent with the orderly universe we see. It does however predict microscopic chaos and if you do experiments on the microscopic world you find that is the case.

    10. #10
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      I know quantum physics doesn't predict the crazy events I talked about it. I was just taking its reasoning to the nth degree. If particles just act randomly without reason in any case at all, it is just as absurd as a hippo coming out of the sink and humping Big Bird's leg. It doesn't make sense.

      How is randomness real on a microscopic level? Let's say a given particle can do either A or B. There is a reason it does A if it does A and a reason it does B if it does B. How could it possibly just happen to do A instead of B for no reason? That is not deterministic. It is hocus pocus.

      "God does not play dice." - Albert Einstein

      "God does play dice." - Stephen Hawking

      Hawking's double metaphor is wrong.
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    11. #11
      Drivel's Advocate Xaqaria's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2007
      LD Count
      WhoIsJohnGalt?
      Gender
      Location
      Denver, CO Catchphrase: BullCockie!
      Posts
      5,589
      Likes
      929
      DJ Entries
      9
      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind View Post
      It doesn't make sense.
      To you.

      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind
      With a little more research, physicists are going to realize that they were talking out of their asses.
      Just a liiittle more research and they'll realize they've had it all wrong for the last 100 years. I'm sure they'll realize that DNA isn't real, and the speed of light isn't a constant as well.

      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind
      I am 100% positive that the theory will eventually be shot down.
      This is the reason why your opinion doesn't mean very much. How can you honestly be 100% positive about something that you obviously don't know that much about? Its this sort of mentality that really calls all of your opinions into question, and not just this one.
      Last edited by Xaqaria; 03-21-2010 at 01:54 AM.

      The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
      Art
      Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles

    12. #12
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Quote Originally Posted by Xaqaria View Post
      To you.
      ... or to logic itself.

      Quote Originally Posted by Xaqaria View Post
      Just a liiittle more research and they'll realize they've had it all wrong for the last 100 years. I'm sure they'll realize that DNA isn't real, and the speed of light isn't a constant as well.
      Why? Those are logical concepts.

      Quote Originally Posted by Xaqaria View Post
      This is the reason why your opinion doesn't mean very much. How can you honestly be 100% positive about something that you obviously don't know that much about? Its this sort of mentality that really calls all of your opinions into question, and not just this one.
      I know enough about it to know the illogic of it and the cop out nature of the unfounded conclusion. I explained my reasoning, and you countered none of it. None. Do you think you can give it a try? Your mere appeals to authority and personal insults are as worthless as just about all of your other posts on this site.
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    13. #13
      Drivel's Advocate Xaqaria's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2007
      LD Count
      WhoIsJohnGalt?
      Gender
      Location
      Denver, CO Catchphrase: BullCockie!
      Posts
      5,589
      Likes
      929
      DJ Entries
      9
      I will give it a try. I won't say I am 100% sure of my perspective on it because I've only been studying it for a little under 10 years (privately and academically) so I can't possibly claim to understand it fully. I will say before I do that you would do much better to do research yourself. It is a difficult subject, and as Richard Feynmen is famous for saying, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."

      I go to work tonight at 11p. Over the course of the 8 hours that I'm there with little to do, I'll try to lay down a very basic explanation of quantum mechanics for you and I'll cite sources as much as I possibly can. If I don't feel I am finished by the time my shift is done, I'll post what I have and finish it later.

      Just as a note though, I find it incredibly ironic that you think the constancy of the speed of light is logical but that all of quantum mechanics is not, especially since there is more data supporting the theory of quantum mechanics and both are equally mathematically supported.

      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind View Post
      I know enough about it to know the illogic of it and the cop out nature of the unfounded conclusion.
      Your presentation of the 'unfounded conclusion' is utterly wrong, so I can't see how this statement could possibly be true.
      Last edited by Xaqaria; 03-21-2010 at 02:22 AM.

      The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
      Art
      Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles

    14. #14
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Quote Originally Posted by Xaqaria View Post
      I will give it a try. I won't say I am 100% sure of my perspective on it because I've only been studying it for a little under 10 years (privately and academically) so I can't possibly claim to understand it fully. I will say before I do that you would do much better to do research yourself. It is a difficult subject, and as Richard Feynmen is famous for saying, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."

      I go to work tonight at 11p. Over the course of the 8 hours that I'm there with little to do, I'll try to lay down a very basic explanation of quantum mechanics for you and I'll cite sources as much as I possibly can. If I don't feel I am finished by the time my shift is done, I'll post what I have and finish it later.
      No, I don't mean explain the subject itself. Volumes of encyclopedias could be written on it and probably have. I raised very specific issues. Just explain where I am wrong on those, mainly my point about a particle doing A instead of B. If it does one instead of the other for no reason, it is a matter of an event coming from absolutely nowhere. It is something from nothing. That is irrational, and it is magic. That is the main thing I am asking for you to counter.

      By the way, since the authority of the people in the discipline means a lot to you, the idea has not been reconciled with Einstein's general theory of relativity, and Einstein disagreed with it flat out. He said, "God does not play dice."

      http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/23668
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    15. #15
      Drivel's Advocate Xaqaria's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2007
      LD Count
      WhoIsJohnGalt?
      Gender
      Location
      Denver, CO Catchphrase: BullCockie!
      Posts
      5,589
      Likes
      929
      DJ Entries
      9
      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind View Post
      No, I don't mean explain the subject itself. Volumes of encyclopedias could be written on it and probably have. I raised very specific issues. Just explain where I am wrong on those, mainly my point about a particle doing A instead of B. If it does one instead of the other for no reason, it is a matter of an event coming from absolutely nowhere. It is something from nothing. That is irrational, and it is magic. That is the main thing I am asking for you to counter.

      By the way, since the authority of the people in the discipline means a lot to you, the idea has not been reconciled with Einstein's general theory of relativity, and Einstein disagreed with it flat out. He said, "God does not play dice."

      http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/23668
      Einstein disagreed with it and yet he contributed some of the most powerful theoretical evidence for it. As a matter of fact, I would say that Einstein contributed almost as much to quantum mechanics as he did to relativity, so to say that I trust Einstein over quantum mechanics would itself be illogical. As I said before, your presentation of the conclusions are wrong and it will take me awhile to write out exactly how wrong they are, why and how they are wrong and find all of the sources that will lend more credence to what I have to say. Saying that Particles do A instead of B implies that A and B are discrete and mutually exclusive outcomes. It also implies that it is indeed possible for something other than what happens to happen. These constitute the crux of where you are wrong.
      Last edited by Xaqaria; 03-21-2010 at 02:34 AM.

      The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
      Art
      Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles

    16. #16
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      I know quantum physics doesn't predict the crazy events I talked about it. I was just taking its reasoning to the nth degree. If particles just act randomly without reason in any case at all, it is just as absurd as a hippo coming out of the sink and humping Big Bird's leg. It doesn't make sense.

      How is randomness real on a microscopic level? Let's say a given particle can do either A or B. There is a reason it does A if it does A and a reason it does B if it does B. How could it possibly just happen to do A instead of B for no reason? That is not deterministic. It is hocus pocus.

      "God does not play dice." - Albert Einstein

      "God does play dice." - Stephen Hawking

      Hawking's double metaphor is wrong.
      I hadn't heard that quote from Hawking but it's very good. What he's pointing out is that you can't provide a logical argument for the universe being probabilistic or not. Einstein only ever asserted it, and you have only ever asserted it.

      All you can do then is look at the empirical evidence; which shows randomness.

      Isn't it just as absurd that a particle should objectively exist in the first place (i.e. with probability 1) rather than a particle existing with a certain objective probability? Neither of these situations 'makes sense'. They just are.

      Why do you think a constant speed of light is logical? You realise this means even if you ran towards a beam of light it wouldn't be travelling towards you any faster?

    17. #17
      Member
      Join Date
      Feb 2004
      Posts
      5,165
      Likes
      708
      I know I have gone over that before with Universal Mind, but he mostly just ignored it. There is a very logcal reason you can't compare microscopic particles with larger objects. Because the large objects are made from the a larger number of smaller particles and have extremely large margin of error.

      While a microscopic particle may turn slightly to the right at random, an object made of trillions of particles would need all trillion or the majority of the trillions of particles its made from to all turn slightly right at the exact same time, for the larger object to do so.

      It really common sense. The larger the object, the less likely small minute changes in subatomic particles are to effect it.

    18. #18
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Quote Originally Posted by Xaqaria View Post
      to say that I trust Einstein over quantum mechanics would itself be illogical.
      No it wouldn't. He didn't agree with the totality of it. He agreed with some of the principles, but not the big picture. He said that randomness is a crock of shit.

      Quote Originally Posted by Xaqaria View Post
      Saying that Particles do A instead of B implies that A and B are discrete and mutually exclusive outcomes.
      What's the problem with that? They have different names for a reason.

      Quote Originally Posted by Xaqaria View Post
      It also implies that it is indeed possible for something other than what happens to happen.
      WTF? How?

      Quote Originally Posted by Alric View Post
      I know I have gone over that before with Universal Mind, but he mostly just ignored it. There is a very logcal reason you can't compare microscopic particles with larger objects. Because the large objects are made from the a larger number of smaller particles and have extremely large margin of error.

      While a microscopic particle may turn slightly to the right at random, an object made of trillions of particles would need all trillion or the majority of the trillions of particles its made from to all turn slightly right at the exact same time, for the larger object to do so.

      It really common sense. The larger the object, the less likely small minute changes in subatomic particles are to effect it.
      I know that part of the theory. It does not hold. The idea that cause is not an inherent requirement in the universe opens the door to all kinds of off the wall shit, like all of the particles of a large object doing something insane together. Why wouldn't they? It's not like something has to cause it to happen. So what if they would be acting all at once? Why wouldn't they all act together and turn into raining seals? If cause is not a requirement, there is no limit to the WTF possibilities.

      I am not talking about the mere likelihood principle involved in particle movement. I am talking about the absence of the requirement of cause in the universe. It has to be an absolute law, or else reality is out of order.

      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      I Isn't it just as absurd that a particle should objectively exist in the first place (i.e. with probability 1) rather than a particle existing with a certain objective probability?
      No.

      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      Why do you think a constant speed of light is logical? You realise this means even if you ran towards a beam of light it wouldn't be travelling towards you any faster?
      Damn, that's a trippy thought. I'll need to read more about the speed of light to see what that's about. It doesn't seem so logical right now, but maybe it somehow is. The whole reference point thing gets really confusing and brings up a lot of questions.
      Last edited by Universal Mind; 03-21-2010 at 03:20 AM.
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    19. #19
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      That's because there's no such thing as 'logical' at the lowest level of reductionism. It just is.

      There's no reason that the speed of light doesn't change with your velocity; nor is there any a priori reason to think that this isn't possible. There are only a posteriori arguments based on human experience, which turn out to be negated by other evidence.

      In the same way you can't ask 'why' the universe is inherently probabilistic. It just is. You can't give any logical argument that it shouldn't be, only a posteriori assertions based on what humans' brains are used to perceiving, in a realm where such randomness is invisible.

    20. #20
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      That's because there's no such thing as 'logical' at the lowest level of reductionism.
      At least you admit that the idea is not logical.

      Yeah, I definitely have a problem considering that anything about reality could be illogical. Even if it's the case, I'll probably never know because I have it really far in my head that reality is logical. It is the centerpiece of my understanding of reality.
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    21. #21
      Drivel's Advocate Xaqaria's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2007
      LD Count
      WhoIsJohnGalt?
      Gender
      Location
      Denver, CO Catchphrase: BullCockie!
      Posts
      5,589
      Likes
      929
      DJ Entries
      9
      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind View Post
      At least you admit that the idea is not logical.

      Yeah, I definitely have a problem considering that anything about reality could be illogical. Even if it's the case, I'll probably never know because I have it really far in my head that reality is logical. It is the centerpiece of my understanding of reality.
      He said that it is not logical, not that it is illogical. There is a fundamental difference there.

      The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
      Art
      Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles

    22. #22
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Quote Originally Posted by Xaqaria View Post
      He said that it is not logical, not that it is illogical. There is a fundamental difference there.
      illogical principle = principle that is not logical
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    23. #23
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      Yeah Xaq said it.

      In fact you saying that indicates you missed the whole point of my post:

      At the fundamental level of reality you can give no a priori arguments for the existence of anything. This does not mean these things aren't real, it just means that you can't give a logical argument for them. This doesn't make them 'illogical' either, the point is that the concept of logical argument does not apply to these things.

      Example: try to give a logical argument for the existence of mass.

    24. #24
      Member
      Join Date
      Feb 2004
      Posts
      5,165
      Likes
      708
      The reason the wierd stuff doesn't happen, is because if it did it wouldn't be random. Trillions of particles changings or moving together as one, isn't random. That would be a precise and planned action.

      Random actions in microscopic particles does not cause random actions in large bodies of particles. It only causes random actions in microscopic particles. Things disappearing or spontaneously changing isn't random, it would take direct and planned action to happen.

    25. #25
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      Yeah Xaq said it.

      In fact you saying that indicates you missed the whole point of my post:

      At the fundamental level of reality you can give no a priori arguments for the existence of anything. This does not mean these things aren't real, it just means that you can't give a logical argument for them. This doesn't make them 'illogical' either, the point is that the concept of logical argument does not apply to these things.
      You said this...

      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      That's because there's no such thing as 'logical' at the lowest level of reductionism.
      We are talking about princples, and you said there is no such thing as "logical" at the level they are on. Thus, you are talking about principles that are not logical. Principles that are not logical are illogical.

      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      Example: try to give a logical argument for the existence of mass.
      Matterial objects exist, and they exist with varying amounts of matter. Thus, matter exists with varying mass. Therefore, mass exists.

      Quote Originally Posted by Alric View Post
      The reason the wierd stuff doesn't happen, is because if it did it wouldn't be random. Trillions of particles changings or moving together as one, isn't random. That would be a precise and planned action.
      Why wouldn't it be random? Why would it have to be planned? If cause doesn't have to exist, then there is a big hole in the laws of reality that allows WTF to happen. There is no reason for it not to. The only thing that prevents hippos from crawling out of your sink is the requirement of cause. Nothing would cause hippos to crawl out of your sink. That is why it doesn't happen.

      Quote Originally Posted by Alric View Post
      Random actions in microscopic particles does not cause random actions in large bodies of particles. It only causes random actions in microscopic particles. Things disappearing or spontaneously changing isn't random, it would take direct and planned action to happen.
      Why would it take direct and planned action in your idea of what the universe is? You are talking about a specific cause that must apply. Without the universal requirement of cause, the requirement you are talking about is out the window. Even if it would exist in such a situation, the rules of reality could randomly change and make the rule nonexistent. The requirement of cause is what stops that from happening in reality. Once you say something can come from nothing, which is what you are in effect saying, nothing holds the rules of reality together in your hypothetical universe.

      No matter how much you try to differentiate low level and high level, nothing gets around the fact that randomness/causelessness involves something from nothing. That is magic. It is not real.
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    Page 1 of 12 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •