Discussion:
what's built in?
(too old to reply)
Dale
2016-06-17 22:13:51 UTC
Permalink
if there is a causal chain of events, shouldn't all events be
predictable and all elements of things be material and empirically
found by induction?

referring to evolution

am I right that nothing empirical can be random?
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
https://twitter.com/@dalekellytoo/
https://www.facebook.com/dalekellytoo/
raven1
2016-06-17 22:53:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
if there is a causal chain of events, shouldn't all events be
predictable
To an omniscient being, perhaps, but we have enough difficulty with a
three-body problem, much less anything more complex, like predicting
the weather next Tuesday. See The Butterfly Effect, Chaos theory, et
al.
Post by Dale
and all elements of things be material
As opposed to what?
Post by Dale
and empirically
found by induction?
Empirical induction is a tricky thing. See David Hume.
Post by Dale
referring to evolution
am I right that nothing empirical can be random?
I have no idea what you mean by that. What definition of "empirical"
are you using? And what does it have to do with evolution?
Dale
2016-06-18 00:13:35 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 18:53:40 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
if there is a causal chain of events, shouldn't all events be
predictable
To an omniscient being, perhaps, but we have enough difficulty with a
three-body problem, much less anything more complex, like predicting
the weather next Tuesday. See The Butterfly Effect, Chaos theory, et
al.
Post by Dale
and all elements of things be material
As opposed to what?
Post by Dale
and empirically
found by induction?
Empirical induction is a tricky thing. See David Hume.
Post by Dale
referring to evolution
am I right that nothing empirical can be random?
I have no idea what you mean by that. What definition of "empirical"
are you using? And what does it have to do with evolution?
empirical by means of material testing of inference
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
https://twitter.com/@dalekellytoo/
https://www.facebook.com/dalekellytoo/
raven1
2016-06-18 00:24:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 18:53:40 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
if there is a causal chain of events, shouldn't all events be
predictable
To an omniscient being, perhaps, but we have enough difficulty with a
three-body problem, much less anything more complex, like predicting
the weather next Tuesday. See The Butterfly Effect, Chaos theory, et
al.
Post by Dale
and all elements of things be material
As opposed to what?
Post by Dale
and empirically
found by induction?
Empirical induction is a tricky thing. See David Hume.
Post by Dale
referring to evolution
am I right that nothing empirical can be random?
I have no idea what you mean by that. What definition of "empirical"
are you using? And what does it have to do with evolution?
empirical by means of material testing of inference
Your tendency to obfuscate, rather than clarify, is becoming tedious.
(Translation: What's your bloody point?)
Dale
2016-06-18 00:35:13 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 20:24:43 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 18:53:40 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
if there is a causal chain of events, shouldn't all events be
predictable
To an omniscient being, perhaps, but we have enough difficulty with a
three-body problem, much less anything more complex, like predicting
the weather next Tuesday. See The Butterfly Effect, Chaos theory, et
al.
Post by Dale
and all elements of things be material
As opposed to what?
Post by Dale
and empirically
found by induction?
Empirical induction is a tricky thing. See David Hume.
Post by Dale
referring to evolution
am I right that nothing empirical can be random?
I have no idea what you mean by that. What definition of "empirical"
are you using? And what does it have to do with evolution?
empirical by means of material testing of inference
Your tendency to obfuscate, rather than clarify, is becoming tedious.
(Translation: What's your bloody point?)
gain or fail must be an available function, somewhere in reflection

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
https://twitter.com/@dalekellytoo/
https://www.facebook.com/dalekellytoo/
raven1
2016-06-18 01:09:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 20:24:43 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 18:53:40 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
if there is a causal chain of events, shouldn't all events be
predictable
To an omniscient being, perhaps, but we have enough difficulty with a
three-body problem, much less anything more complex, like predicting
the weather next Tuesday. See The Butterfly Effect, Chaos theory, et
al.
Post by Dale
and all elements of things be material
As opposed to what?
Post by Dale
and empirically
found by induction?
Empirical induction is a tricky thing. See David Hume.
Post by Dale
referring to evolution
am I right that nothing empirical can be random?
I have no idea what you mean by that. What definition of "empirical"
are you using? And what does it have to do with evolution?
empirical by means of material testing of inference
Your tendency to obfuscate, rather than clarify, is becoming tedious.
(Translation: What's your bloody point?)
gain or fail must be an available function, somewhere in reflection
So I'll take that as a yes, you're trippng balls. Got it.
Dale
2016-06-17 22:58:08 UTC
Permalink
Evolution is a result, not a force
or even a process. As a matter of
fact, evolution isn't even the most
common result. Extinction is.
Extinction happens far more often
then the evolution of a new species.
Oh. Anything that can not be predicted
is effectively "Random," even if in
theory it is the inescapable consequence
of the coming together of any number of
variables.
Put another way: We can't necessarily tell
the difference between "Random" and
"Extremely Complex." From our perspective
they can be one and the same.
but can causality and randomness coexist?
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/146033250388
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
https://twitter.com/@dalekellytoo/
https://www.facebook.com/dalekellytoo/
Christopher A. Lee
2016-06-17 23:37:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Evolution is a result, not a force
or even a process. As a matter of
fact, evolution isn't even the most
common result. Extinction is.
Extinction happens far more often
then the evolution of a new species.
Oh. Anything that can not be predicted
is effectively "Random," even if in
theory it is the inescapable consequence
of the coming together of any number of
variables.
No,

It can be weighted random, random within constraints, etc.
Post by Dale
Put another way: We can't necessarily tell
the difference between "Random" and
"Extremely Complex." From our perspective
they can be one and the same.
Bullshit.
Post by Dale
but can causality and randomness coexist?
Yes.

There is a correlation between exposure to ultra-violet and melanoma.
But everybody who has excessive exposure to the sun doesn't get
Melanoma.

Please engage brain before operating mouth.
Dale
2016-06-18 00:12:21 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 18:37:09 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Dale
Evolution is a result, not a force
or even a process. As a matter of
fact, evolution isn't even the most
common result. Extinction is.
Extinction happens far more often
then the evolution of a new species.
Oh. Anything that can not be predicted
is effectively "Random," even if in
theory it is the inescapable consequence
of the coming together of any number of
variables.
No,
It can be weighted random, random within constraints, etc.
Post by Dale
Put another way: We can't necessarily tell
the difference between "Random" and
"Extremely Complex." From our perspective
they can be one and the same.
Bullshit.
Post by Dale
but can causality and randomness coexist?
Yes.
the set of causality(OR)randomness would have minimum ordinality
because of the random elements, it would also have maximum ordinality
because each causal element lies in a chain of cause and effect and
can be mapped onto itself

you can't have two ordinalities, since I observe causality and not
randomness I pick what I said in the original post
Post by Christopher A. Lee
There is a correlation between exposure to ultra-violet and melanoma.
But everybody who has excessive exposure to the sun doesn't get
Melanoma.
Please engage brain before operating mouth.
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
https://twitter.com/@dalekellytoo/
https://www.facebook.com/dalekellytoo/
b***@m.nu
2016-06-18 01:10:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Evolution is a result, not a force
or even a process. As a matter of
fact, evolution isn't even the most
common result. Extinction is.
Extinction happens far more often
then the evolution of a new species.
actually you have no idea and are guessing at this conclusion, and it
is about as fucking stupid as you are.
Post by Dale
Oh. Anything that can not be predicted
is effectively "Random," even if in
theory it is the inescapable consequence
of the coming together of any number of
variables.
and again you are talking shit
Post by Dale
Put another way: We can't necessarily tell
the difference between "Random" and
"Extremely Complex." From our perspective
they can be one and the same.
talking shit again, you dont even know what you are saying
Post by Dale
but can causality and randomness coexist?
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/146033250388
A Nony Mouse
2016-06-17 22:59:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
if there is a causal chain of events, shouldn't all events be
predictable and all elements of things be material and empirically
found by induction?
referring to evolution
am I right that nothing empirical can be random?
Radioactive decay is, as far as anyone has yet been able to tell,
entirely and perfectly random. At least other than in bombs.
Post by Dale
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
https://www.facebook.com/dalekellytoo/
Dale
2016-06-18 00:14:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Nony Mouse
Post by Dale
if there is a causal chain of events, shouldn't all events be
predictable and all elements of things be material and empirically
found by induction?
referring to evolution
am I right that nothing empirical can be random?
Radioactive decay is, as far as anyone has yet been able to tell,
entirely and perfectly random. At least other than in bombs.
the set of causality(OR)randomness would have minimum ordinality
because of the random elements, it would also have maximum ordinality
because each causal element lies in a chain of cause and effect and
can be mapped onto itself

you can't have two ordinalities, since I observe causality and not
randomness I pick what I said in the original post
Post by A Nony Mouse
Post by Dale
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
https://www.facebook.com/dalekellytoo/
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
https://twitter.com/@dalekellytoo/
https://www.facebook.com/dalekellytoo/
Bob Casanova
2016-06-18 17:47:24 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:59:17 -0600, the following appeared
Post by A Nony Mouse
Post by Dale
if there is a causal chain of events, shouldn't all events be
predictable and all elements of things be material and empirically
found by induction?
referring to evolution
am I right that nothing empirical can be random?
Radioactive decay is, as far as anyone has yet been able to tell,
entirely and perfectly random. At least other than in bombs.
It's random there, too. It's just random *much* faster.
--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov
Christopher A. Lee
2016-06-17 23:24:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
if there is a causal chain of events, shouldn't all events be
predictable and all elements of things be material and empirically
found by induction?
referring to evolution
am I right that nothing empirical can be random?
Idiot,
Dale
2016-06-18 00:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
if there is a causal chain of events, shouldn't all events be
predictable...
Pull your head out of your ass, and go read a book.
Maybe you haven't heard of Quantum Mechanics? It was
developed back in the 1920's but I realize you much
prefer Bronze-Age thinking.
quantum mechanics has yet to explain the wave equation unless you
accept the Copenhagen Interpretation

Many Worlds is not statistically possible, all probabilities cannot
exceed 100% while Many Worlds has "many 100%'s"

Transactional fails the same way, it has a 300% probability, present
past and future waves

the set of causality(OR)randomness would have minimum ordinality
because of the random elements, it would also have maximum ordinality
because each causal element lies in a chain of cause and effect and
can be mapped onto itself

you can't have two ordinalities, since I observe causality and not
randomness I pick what I said in the original post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
https://twitter.com/@dalekellytoo/
https://www.facebook.com/dalekellytoo/
raven1
2016-06-18 00:27:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale
Post by Dale
if there is a causal chain of events, shouldn't all events be
predictable...
Pull your head out of your ass, and go read a book.
Maybe you haven't heard of Quantum Mechanics? It was
developed back in the 1920's but I realize you much
prefer Bronze-Age thinking.
quantum mechanics has yet to explain the wave equation unless you
accept the Copenhagen Interpretation
Many Worlds is not statistically possible, all probabilities cannot
exceed 100% while Many Worlds has "many 100%'s"
Transactional fails the same way, it has a 300% probability, present
past and future waves
the set of causality(OR)randomness would have minimum ordinality
because of the random elements, it would also have maximum ordinality
because each causal element lies in a chain of cause and effect and
can be mapped onto itself
you can't have two ordinalities, since I observe causality and not
randomness I pick what I said in the original post.
Dude, seriously, are you tripping balls or what?
Dale
2016-06-18 00:38:07 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 20:27:47 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
Post by Dale
Post by Dale
if there is a causal chain of events, shouldn't all events be
predictable...
Pull your head out of your ass, and go read a book.
Maybe you haven't heard of Quantum Mechanics? It was
developed back in the 1920's but I realize you much
prefer Bronze-Age thinking.
quantum mechanics has yet to explain the wave equation unless you
accept the Copenhagen Interpretation
Many Worlds is not statistically possible, all probabilities cannot
exceed 100% while Many Worlds has "many 100%'s"
Transactional fails the same way, it has a 300% probability, present
past and future waves
the set of causality(OR)randomness would have minimum ordinality
because of the random elements, it would also have maximum ordinality
because each causal element lies in a chain of cause and effect and
can be mapped onto itself
you can't have two ordinalities, since I observe causality and not
randomness I pick what I said in the original post.
Dude, seriously, are you tripping balls or what?
I might have missed the thought that the set of causal(OR)acausal can
have two subsets each with it own ordinality, but the oridnality of
acausal is zero, while the ordinality of causal is positive due to a
chaining of cause and effect

so, 0 and positive is right, I am wrong

pay no attention to previous thoughts, maybe ...
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org
https://twitter.com/@dalekellytoo/
https://www.facebook.com/dalekellytoo/
Loading...