Theli

Imagine a ball. It has set attributes such as mass, height and width. On a smaller scale it is based on molecules (also with set attributes). What if we were to replace all those set attr. with random ones, random height and random mass, even the subatomic particles would be based on random parameters. There cannot be any actual limits to the randomized attr. either, as they would have to be set also. What would be left?
Many has stated on this board that a universe without set parameters would be chaotic, but I don't see how this is possible. What would be chaotic?

My thought is that "random" can subjectivly only be defined as 'unknown', and objectivly as 'nothing'. I might be way off here.

sweep

If an event has no cause, such as who, where and what we are born as, then I would call that event truly random. But this begs the question, did nothing cause the event, and, if so, does that make nothing knowable?

los

If you have nothing you have nothing. I am not certain how else to make this clear.

I think it is obvious the universe is not random. That there must be a design of some sort. Just look at the galaxy we know. And how the other galaxies hold to the same characteristics. Perhaps the universe is one big galaxy with several smaller versions. Contained in a causality form. (my opinion only)

What is chaos without order or order without chaos? One does not exist without the other.

Thieving Magpie

I used to wonder about this question, and questions like it that involved a similar duality. When something can only be defined by it's opposite, it is inherently subjective, and in an realistic sense, non-existent. Trying to understand the universe through chaos or order is self-defeating because it cannot possibly be either if both definately exist (this is assuming of course that both do obviously exist which you seem to have done - I have not expressed my own belief on this matter). I now consider such questions to be a waste of time. What is order or chaos without an outside observer? Nothing at all (or so I believe).

los

Hello, Thieving Magpie.


I suppose, and perhaps obviously so, I see this is as a simple example of the paradox. Which I believe is a valid concept.

I do agree that continually asking the question is futile, but it does not result in "nothing". For example. We have chaos in this world. Whether it be of the current political unrests, or of a scientific experiment gone bad. We also, as a separate enity, have order. In that we have life at all.

Thus, highly do I assert that we have a definition of 'something' through it's converse, and I am not certain how you think this is subjective. Certainly (as a philosophical example) you could not have a true definition of empiricisim without rationalism, could you? These concepts may be subjective in their presentaion but as opposing 'beliefs' ... one would not exist without the other.

To further my point, the following quote:

"I do not approve the extermination of the enemy; the policy of exterminating or, as it is barbarously said, liquidating enemies, is one of the most alarming developments of modern war and peace, from the point of view of those who desire the survival of culture. One needs the enemy. " -- TS Eliot

Keith Russell

Greetings:

There is no nothing.

Keith.

Mr. Sammi

Can random be the presentation from a set (lack of a better representative qualifier) so large and vast - uncountable and uncertifiable by natural means IMPLYING the impossibility to predict outcome UNTIL the outcome has occurred.

This does not defy causality. We can say with certainity that the next presentation will come from the set, will be caused by the participation of the set, but the precise presentaion cannot be fully known.

Our universe cannot count itself because of what it takes to be occupied with the count. This means the universe although finite in elements is infinite in possibilities.

I have heard some talk of countable infinity on this very board. My answer to this is hog warts. We can pretend to count infinity but when all of infinity is occupied in keeping the score or keeping track of the count, the additional count, the final count of itself is untabulatable.

* * *

I would have to agree with Theli that random is basically UNKNOWN until instantiated.

NOTHING is infinite. There is nothing to count nothing. Nothing is uncountable. Anything uncountable is infinite. Anything which can arise from infinity is random.


Sammi Na Boodie (cross-check)

Keith Russell

Sammi, it's starting to sound like you think nothing exists:

There is no nothing.

Nothing is not a 'thing'; 'nothing' is not 'something'.

Keith.

eh

Saying nothing exists is like saying non existence exists. Circle squares, anyone?

Keith Russell

Eh:

Saying 'nothing exists', is betrayed by one's ability to say it.

(Something has to exist, for one to be able to do--or say--anything. If one says 'nothing exists', then one is wrong, merely by virtue of having said it.)

I never said 'nothing exists'. I only ever say the opposite:
'nothing does not exist'.

Keith.