Hitting a law of thought does please the intuition. It is what it is; but if that is the answer to every why then meaning or reason is something we impart on things. It has no existence without the human mind or perhaps a more complex explanation is in order. Is it always true that it just is? — Cheshire

Here's another way to look at it. Biology, the youngest of the sciences, is reducible to chemistry, chemistry to physics, physics to...here's where it gets interesting...mathematics (Mathematical Universe Hypothesis)

Mathematics, as we all know, is Axiomatic. In other words, it just is! Axioms, by definition, are assumptions - deemed true sans proof. Whatever else mathematics is, infinite regress isn't one of its problems.

Cause you're not one of "the
quickest". :joke: — 180 Proof

:grin: It sucks to be at the bottom of the food chain!

Dammit, Spock! I'm a doctor, not a metaphysician! — 180 Proof

:lol:

An oldie but goodie. — 180 Proof

:up:

From Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Lt. Commander Leonard McCoy: Spock, wake up, damn it!

Spock: I am entirely conscious, Doctor. I'm simply contemplating the nature of mortality.

Lt. Commander Leonard McCoy: Feeling philosophical, huh? Massive blood loss will do that to you.

All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher.
— An old gringo...
Philosophy is the struggle against stupidity (i.e. the problematique of maladaptive 1:1 identity - confusion - of the ideal (maps, words/metrics) with the real (territory, facts-of-the-matter) :point: 'essence = existence'). Insofar as it can be discerned (or conceived of as a 'criterion of judgment'), the real is defined by a process of eliminating - negating - 'ideals' (necessary fictions, impossible worlds/objects, "realer" reals ... :point: members of the empty set).

What is your aim in philosophy? – To show the fly the way out of the fly bottle.
— Witty, PI §309
Against stupidity philosophers (i.e. sisyphusian 'meta-cognitive hygienists' and/or 'dialectical rodeo-clowns') struggle in vain. Even "the gods" are too bored for that! — 180 Proof

:fire: :fire: :fire:

My two cents.

Suppose I assert the proposition Q. This proposition by itself can be either true/false, Q v ~Q When I assert Q, I mean that Q is true. The question why Q? is simply a request to make known what happened between the transition from Q v ~Q (doubt) to Q (certainty).

An infinite regress will rear its ugly head once certainty is declared in re the conclusion for the simple reason that it would require the premises to also be true and that would require further arguments which will also have its own premises which themsleves would have to be true...ad nauseum.

Best way to terminate an infinite regress, probably the easy way out, is to say something like IF P is true THEN Q is true as well, tactfully avoiding commitment on the truth of the premise P. That's what valid arguments are by the way: IF the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. It's all about logic, deductive logic in the end! Sadly, logic alone is useless - it's like a coffee machine with no coffee.

This "technique" piques my interest because it boils down to or is identical to one of the three lemmas in Agrippa the skeptic's trilemma viz. axiomatization, the other two being, circularity and infinite regress. :chin:

Children, it seems, are born skeptics - they're deeply puzzled by or even distressed by the transition from p v ~p (doubt) to p or ~p (certainty).

Note also that the entire scientific enterprise consists of inductively inferring the laws of nature and then deductively inferring from these laws of nature. The idea it seems is to work backwards from empirical truths (observational data) to the axioms (the laws of nature). We tweak/trash the axioms (hypotheses/theories) as and when they contradict empirical truths. These axioms (hypotheses/theories) would answer the question, "why?" with, It Just Is, exactly what axioms are.

That probably isn't as much an issue with metaphysics, philosophy of science, philosophy of art, etc.; but when it comes to ethics, morality, and political philosophy, I'm not so sure. — T Clark

Good point!

Hmmmm. — tim wood

Oops! :sweat:

I'm not interested in discussing this further. — Xtrix

:ok: :smile:

Because they're both wrong ? — Hello Human

Exactly! You're under the impression that there's a distinction and even if there were one, it didn't matter to your decision - both were on the same list of things you wish you could wish away or make disappear with a wave of a magic wand!

Of course killing is wrong, so you could say that dolphins do is wrong. — Hello Human

However, saying they are cruel is different. Cruelty is the act of killing for pleasure. However, dolphins kill for food, not pleasure. — Hello Human

Why is it wrong but not cruel?

I'll set up a scenario for you. You're the good guy! Yaay!

Imagine yourself walking on the sandy dunes of a desert somewhere, deep in thought, pondering upon this very issue we're discussing.

Suddenly, your foot hits something. You look down and you see a bottle with its neck sticking out. You pick it up and curious you open it. Suddenly, out of the bottle emerges a genie and he says, "what is your wish, master?"

You've been worried to bits about cruelty, wrong, to name a few. This is my chance, you tell yourself. You look the genie in the eye and say, "I want <some things> to end." My best guess is that the list of some things will include, among other things, cruelty for sure but...wait for it...also dolphins killing for food.

My question is, why are these two items - cruelty & dolphins hunting for food - on the same list?

Yes, humanity has become more compassionate. — Hello Human

:sweat: :sweat: Phew!

But when it comes to individual living non-human beings, there doesn't seem to be any change, even though there are far more non-human living beings than human beings. — Hello Human

You can't have it both ways, you know. Either there's been change (for the better :sweat: :sweat: ) or no such change is discernible. I don't blame you though - it gets really weird sometimes, oh well, most of the time.

They are not cruel, they're just carnivorous. — Hello Human

A distinction without a difference, friend. If killing is cruel, necessarily dolphins are cruel. Again, you can't have it both ways.

So, I don't think intelligence makes living beings more compassionate. — Hello Human

Morality = Reason

Life can't on the one hand be all about perpetuation (saving) and on the other hand be about extermination (killing)! It doesn't make sense.

Perhaps, life is trying to eat the cake and have it too! I'm much relieved!

My position is that dualism is asymmetrical when viewed from within. The apparent symmetry of any dualistic philosophy conceals a third relational aspect. Yin-Yang is an example of this - if we perceive two sides then the symmetry is complete, but only because a perspective exists that is neither yin nor yang, and therefore capable of perceiving the two sides. So this completion of symmetry is necessarily inclusive of a third party, regardless whether or not it is ‘perceived’ as such by any party. — Possibility

Reasons? None given!

No, it won’t automatically constitute a duet - the ‘anti third party’ is the duality with which it interacts — Possibility

What are you saying? It would/it wouldn't.

But living beings generally tend to only assign value to themselves, but not other living beings. The question is whether or not they value not only themselves but also other living beings. — Hello Human

That's an outdated idea as far as I can tell. The modern outlook is holistic in charater. Gone are the days when it was us vs them. Now, it's only US - it's either ALL or none. Look around you, do you see the evidence that humanity has extended its compassion, heretofore reserved for itself and that too only narrowly - to other living beings? Animal cruelty is a big issue in some parts of the world, so is deforestation, hunting, pollution and so on. All these are clear signals of a rapidpy growing global awareness that we're all in this together - any one of us, and by "us" I refer to every single living species, slips up and the entire ecology comes crashing down around our ears.

How does this relate to your question? Only to the extent that the global awareness I mentioned above is vital to life as a whole. Humans, by virtue of their intellectual prowess, is simultaneously the worst and the best candidate for the position of guardian of life - we can inflict great damage to the biosphere and we also have the smarts to not only reverse that but also shield the world from threats, greater ones I presume, that have nothing to do with human activity.

Why is this of any importance?

Mayhaps life can eventually, through us or other more intelligent species that may evolve later on, discover its own purpose. Possibly, the entire 4 billion years or so history of life that preceded the advent of humans was to get us to the point where one of the countless life-forms, us, formulates the question, "what is the meaning of life?" Another 4 billion years may need to pass before we can answer that question and it's our task to ensure life survives till that happens. We are, in a sense, like Morpheus in The Matrix waiting for the arrival of The One. Until The One arrives, we like Morpheus, need to keep Zion safe to the extent possible.

What's intriguing though is that the meaning of life seems to be more about instrumental value - what is the purpose of life? - rather than intrinsic value. Odd that!

Then there's this other bizarre fact we have to factor in. Instrumental value is ultimately about utility. What do you do with a broken cup at your home? Broken cups lose their instrumental value the instant they break. You collect the pieces and into the garbage can they go! At the risk of coming off as a cold-hearted person, I'd say there are a lot of people out there who are useless, I myself one of them. However, unlike the broken cup, we have serious misgivings about rounding up all useless people and treating them like garbage - life, in and of itself, seems to possess intrinsic value.

Frankly, I'm confused. You'll find me in the nearest landfill!

In others words, look both ways before crossing ... The quickest species in an unstable ecological niche, is what I mean, tend to survive – not "the quickest" individuals or "quickest" species independent of their indigenous ecology. — 180 Proof

I didn't get it. :sad:

"Luckiest" = quickest? — 180 Proof

The tortoise and the hare

Festina lente

:lol:

Science is a wholly-owned subsidiary of materialism — Some guy

We're missing half the picture @Banno. Of course the other half (the immaterial) maybe pure fantasy, a figment of our imagination as some might say. It's odd though that the pinnacle of materialism - the brain - should have such thoughts at all. Heresy! Heresy! Sleeping with the enemy! Sacré bleu!

"Deserve's got nothin' to do with it." ~William Munny — 180 Proof

:ok: Survival of the fittest luckiest!

Three words from Aristotle. arete, phronesis, eunoia, character, judgment, good will. We're supposed to be able to judge the speaker on these, and thereby his argument and conclusions. These and all the other tools Aristotle (et al) provides. — tim wood

That's what I said! :chin:

Exactly - this is the problem with your thesis. Read the rest of what I wrote. I agree that we’re part of the symmetry, but any binary relation is asymmetrical, unless observed by a third party. If we are part of a binary relation, then we can only observe the other. And this isn’t symmetry. — Possibility

Symmetry, in the context that you seem to be concerned about, seems limited to the number 2 (binary). Hence, your objection since you seem to detect a third party. You say, "...any binary relation is asymmetrical, unless observed by a third party." What you're saying is that dualistic symmetry can only be in the presence of a third party. That's your position on the issue.

Firstly, you've made a statement the relevants part of which I've reproduced above for clarification purposes but, do forgive my lack of astuteness, I don't see an argument backing up your claim of the necessity for a third party for the symmetry to hold. You do realize that you concede that there are two sides in play, otherwise the "third" in your third party doesn't make sense. If there are two (sides), the duality, yin-yang, the symmetry is complete. A third party neither makes nor breaks the symmetry.

Symmetry is ‘invariance under transformations’ (as per jgill’s definition). In what way can we transform (by translating, reflecting, rotating or scaling) our relation to an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good being that would preserve any of its features? Or more simply, in what way can we translate, reflect, rotate or scale any of these ‘symmetry’ relations you’ve described in the OP - from our position within it - that would leave any property of the relation unchanged? — Possibility

:ok: Thanks. It seems irrelevant to the kind of duality I'm interested in viz. the matter-antimatter kind. Good to know though.

Yin and Yang, properly understood, are interchangeable - in symmetry, there is no preference for one side or the other - they are equally different. But this can only be achieved by accepting that we can embody both sides equally, or neither. It has nothing to do with what the extremes are - it’s about observing the symmetrical quality of any relation from outside of it. The third party is not an illusion - it’s necessary. It is commonly overlooked in Western approaches to Eastern philosophy that there is always a practical aspect: a way of interacting — Possibility

Well you have a lot of explaining to do then? Here I am observing the duality of hot vs cold. I also appreciate my participation in the duality of gender. Too, I'm alive and thinking (fingers crossed) as opposed to something dead and unthinking. These are all instances of me becoming cognizant of my own role in the duality of yin-yang. Am I outside myself? To recognize, to become aware, of the duality, the yim-yang of it all doesn't require a third party. Plus, playing the devil's advocate here, this mysterious third party will automatically it seems constitute a duet with an anti third party.

Yin-yang is about extremes. Examine it closely.

Actually, just different. Which is pretty much my whole point. Yin-yang, and all other "template" theories are really about the theories themselves and the people who entertain them. In short, why talk about them if it's the universe - or anything else - that's the topic? Poetic insight? Maybe. But that only goes so far, and not very far at that.

At best they - the "theories" - seem opportunistic, by which I mean they impress people who are inclined for some or other reason to be impressed by them. — tim wood

Pyschology maybe crucial to the issue indeed. Nevertheless, I do like a cold drink on a hot summer day and my worn out old down jacket on a cold winter night.

Let's begin small and a few billion years ago, shall we? In the primordial oceans when life first took hold on earth, the flagellum corkscrews its way through the water, taking this single motile bacterium to places so to speak. Why? I bet only so that it can get to fresh sources of food and away from dangers. Then it feeds, hopefully in peace. It feeds, feeds, and feeds. Why? So that it becomes "mature" enough to divide/multiply (I can never seem to tell the difference).

Suddenly, there are now two bacteria, each with its own flagellum. If I were the personification of anti-life (a being hell-bent on destroying all life), my worries have doubled - now there are two I have to kill. Lather, rinse, repeat and, after some time, billions upon billions of bacteria. I, the anti-life, am overwhelmed. Plus, the bacteria mutate and a weapon that killed them off in the millions is now useless. Everytime I build my perfect weapon, the bacteria adapt. For me, the anti-life, its fighting a losing battle.

The instrumental value of the flagellum, the feeding, the division/multiplication ( :chin: ), by extension every part/process of a living thing, is to perpetuate life for as long as possible. Life then, it seems, considers itself to possess intrinsic value.

Fastforward to the 1900's and we meet Albert Camus (1913 -1960) and life, in human form, asks the million dollar question, what is the meaning (instrumental value) of life?"

There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. — Albert Camus

It's absurd! Which, Albert Camus or Albert Camus, I don't know.

That's a married bachelor. Algorithms are deterministic. They cannot create randomness. — fishfry

Hold on a minute!

This is precisely what pseudorandomness is: A deterministic sequence that passes all known statistical tests for randomness — fishfry

That's precisely the point. You can't tell the difference between randomness and determinism (sorry, I can't find a better word). If so, of what use is the distinction? I phrase I learned in an introduction to philosophy book seems apt: A distinction without a difference.

The Chinese version of this idea is Yin And Yang
— TheMadFool

It's really not, though. — Ying

Expand and elaborate, please!

The variables I referred to are "powerless, ignorant, and bad" and "all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good". These attributed qualities exist only in the minds of observers, and are mediated by personal values. Unfortunately, those human values are seldom simply black vs white. — Gnomon

Dualism/yin-yang, as I explained to tim wood and baker, doesn't exclude the grey zone. Yin and yang are a dynamic duo each serving as only the limits or extremes of a given spectrum (grey areas). All the yin-yang idea is claiming is that there's a flux/flow between extremes that necessarily traverses the grey zone between black and white.

This makes sense. After all for a continuous spectrum there are infinite points in the grey zone. How many subdivisions of the middle zone do you want to create? It's both impractical and also misses the point of dualism/yin-yang to propose anything other than a dualistic paradigm for reality.

Perhaps a more accurate term for what you have in mind is conceptual Complementarity instead of physical Symmetry. :smile: — Gnomon

What's the difference between complementarity and symmetry? One that comes to mind is that the former is constructive (something better than the two opposites emerges from the interaction) while the latter is destructive (the opposites annihilate each other).

Symmetry as yin-yang seems to encompass both views - constructive pairs and destructive pairs. I'm by and large interested in the latter.

Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system. — Gnomon

:up:

Put simply, no correlation exists between the character of a person (good/bad/both/neither) and the quality of the argument fae makes.
— TheMadFool
Aristotle, and a whole boatload of rhetoricians, differs. See Rhetoric. — tim wood

You mean to say a bad person can't come up with a good argument? Do you mean to say bad people are bad precisely because they don't know what a good argument is and ergo, they'll tend to make bad arguments? Ad hominem thus ain't fallacious. @T Clark might find the answer interesting.

Short answer: Ignorance

Long answer: Ignorance elaborated. We don't or for some, like myself, can't comprehend realize the full import of our actions.

There are multiple strands of thought in re the tale of nochalant bug-squashing and, at the same time, frowning upon fly-fishing - morality, cognitive dissonance, religion, to name a few. It takes a simple question like yours to realize how complex our world is.


Have you heard of the meat paradox? People who oppose animal cruelty eat meat. That's something that'll keep us busy for a long time to come.


Speaking for myself, someone who's an nonvegetarian guilty of premeditated bug-squashing so many times that I've lost count, I'd say it's a question of how serious one is about the one's beliefs and at other times, how pragmatic one's beliefs are.

In addition, I quite like that (some) people are offended by wanton bug-squashing. It implies, at least for such people, the light of morality still burns in them even if only dimly.

Will people in the distant future think of us as moral primitives who inflicted, without thinking twice, pain and suffering to both ourselves and other denizens of the earth? They might but I'm fairly certain they would absolve us of our crimes for we didn't know any better (ignorance defense). Intriguingly, very few people have been willing to apply the ignorance defense to the white man (slavery, genocide, etc.) In my humble opinion, we should. It's the only reasonable explanation for so much misery and bloodshed.

No one knowingly does evil. — Socrates

Ignorance is the eipicenter of all evil. :chin:

As an aside,

Le meglio è l'inimico del bene (The perfect is the enemy of the good). — Voltaire

Because the world is not an individual. Humanity is not an individual. That's a metaphor. — Xtrix

You would be contradicting yourself. To intuit the world is like and individual implies that you see a resemblance (analogy) and according to Leibniz's controversial law of the identity of indiscernibles, the world is an indvidual (you can't tell them apart because they look very similar). Have you ever had the chance to meet twins? What happens? Do you call one by the other's name only to be told that you've misidentified the twins! Leibniz's law of the identity of indiscernibles. Controversial?...Hmmm... :chin:

Information about what, exactly. Don't answer reflexively but think about it first.

And I'll note that the site mentions duality. Why not triality, quadrality, quintrality, and so forth? — tim wood

Good advice. I'll take it. That said, my intention was to point you to a reference on the dynamic nature of Yin and yang since you were implying balance (a feature of dualistic thought) is stasis.

What do you mean by "triality,..."? @baker shares your sentiments on this issue. The following few paragraphs are addressed to both of you.

First off, I have to admit that reality is more nuanced and subtle than supposed by dualistic, yin-yang paradigms. I remember employing the term spectrum à la the electromagnetic spectrum as an appropriate concept to capture the finer points of the universe. The spectral nature of reality is what you two are talking about and I concede that to be undeniably true.

The catch though is that yin-yang/duality is about extremes and how they interact with each other, these interactions spawning a multitude of points (the third, the middle way, Aristotle's golden mean, being the most obvious) between them. For instance, hot and cold produce tepid/lukewarm (the third value). Yin-yang/dualism, as you can see, doesn't ignore these in-between states (triality, quadrality, quintrality, and so on). In fact, yin-yang specifically mentions flux - the constant flow between extremes - and implicit in this is what two of you are talking about (triality, quadrality, quintrality, etc.)

Where were we? Ah, yes. Yin-yang/dualism is about extremes - the ends of everything in our spectral universe. How does that bear on my Symmetry Argument/Method. In the simple of terms, if a thing (one extreme) then for certain an anti-thing (the other opposing extreme) and, as an acknowledgement to the two of you, everything in between. Symmetry requires this to be true and it gibes with yin-yang philosophy (the to and fro between extremes).

No, you shouldn't.

All pigs can fly.
Aristotle is a pig.
Aristotle can fly.

Valid, but not sound. — baker

This was what tim wood was advising me not to do, "answer reflexively." Sound advice. Take a look at preceding few paragraphs.

On the other hand, symmetry = invariance under transformations. — jgill

That's just one way of interpreting symmetry. I'm more concerned by the symmetry of the particle-antiparticle kind.

A binary relation is asymmetrical - any claim of ‘symmetry’ is relative to a third party observer — Possibility

We're part of the symmetry. The third party is an illusion or, to be blunt, the third party doesn't exist. How could one be both inside (a part of the universe) and also outside (not a part of the universe - the third party)?

This is only an analogy, — Xtrix

Sorry but there's been a mix-up. I was under the impression that you were talking about the world as a superorganism like colonies of ants and bees.

A superorganism or supraorganism is a group of synergetically interacting organisms of the same species — Wikipedia

Is there sufficient warrant to believe humans, like bees & ants, gather together to form superorganism? Are families, communities, towns, cities, states, countries, the UN simply different levels of organization of what is at the bottom line a superorganism (humanity as a whole)?

Going by the definition of superorganism - a community of individuals with a unity of purpose - humanity is one. Thus, treating the world as an individual isn't "...only an analogy." The world, for better or worse, is an individual. You seem to have intuitivelg grasped this fact but for some reason you chose the world is like and individual over the world is an individual.

Thus, it makes sense to ask of the world what one asks of yourself, me, or any other individual.

This is the key premise! — TheMadFool

human nature — Xtrix

blinded by greed — Xtrix

What are an individual's strengths and weaknesses, the former enabling and the latter disabling? I'm sure the answer to this question will shed light on the superorganism the world is. You talked about human nature and greed and you'll notice that this character flaw in us, individuals, also manifests at the superorganism (global) level. We could say that the world is just a scaled-up version of an individual and for that reason. our individual goodness and badness are also proportionately magnified.

Be the change you wish to see in the world — Mahatma Gandhi

Balance implies (a) stasis. Cycling implies (a) return. Neither is the case. — tim wood

Please visit Yin and yang for more information!

Can’t you see that playing out on this forum? — Wayfarer

I need to work on my observational skills. Either it's talent or practice and I lack the former and I'm just too scatter-brained for the latter. Woe is me!

This, incidentally, is why Franz Brentano’s idea of ‘intentionality’ became one of the hallmarks of phenomenology. Intentionality, or about-ness, is said to be one of the fundamental attributes of consciousness, which marks it off from the physical; thoughts are ‘about’ objects, in a way that has no correspondence in the domain of the physical. — Wayfarer

Saving this file for future reference. I hope I can access it when I need to.

You've been kind enough to remind me of this about-ness. How many times now? This is probably the 5th time. Patience is a virtue they say. :up:

I suppose this has something to do with subject-object distinction. Inanimate matter, a stone for example, can be an object but never a subject while the animate is capable of assuming a subject's role. That should be close enough to the truth for the likes of me.

Right. But to those four, h.sapiens adds another ingredient - rationality, which opens horizons of possibility inconceivable to other species — Wayfarer

A gold star for Wayfarer for this gem!

The 5th F = Figure

Definition of figure: think, consider, or expect to be the case (intentionality/planning) and let's not forget the word also refers to numbers, something you seem interested in in an ontological sense.

Thanks! G'day.

Through intentional action. We all intentionally do things, we carry out conscious acts. If you were unconscious then you couldn't do that. — Wayfarer

Bingo! We talked about this on another thread. I know this is going to make Albert Camus turn in his grave but I have this feeling that he's been cremated. Anyway, life seems to possess...wait for it...purpose - it, as a whole and individually, seems to be on some kind of mission so to speak. Life wants to do something as opposed to a nonliving thing. Take the simplest of living organisms, a bacterium - it seems bent on foraging, feeding, and conjugating (sex). I recall you talking about the 4 F's (food, fight, feed, f**k) - primal drives that, to some degree, define life. Such are missing in nonliving things e.g. a stone - it just sits there and probably has been sitting there and will sit there for all of eternity. If memory serves, you used the word "intentionality".

Wouldn’t you actually have to roll it an infinite number of times for any of the six sides to land facing up exactly one-sixth of the time?

We are, of course, speaking here not only of the ideal die, but also the ideal toss. The mass of the former must be equally distributed throughout its entire body, and its edges must be perfectly sharp everywhere (and remain that way during an infinite number of tosses), and the toss itself must be such that any of the infinite positions and velocities of the die upon impact with the playing surface be equally possible. — Leghorn

I've seen theoretical probability matching experimental probability in less than ideal conditions. I guess what comes into play are errors (+/-) instead of biases (++/- or +/--). You need a large number of throws, ideal size of the experiment = infinity, for the errors to cancel each other out. That's my reading though. I maybe wrong!

@fishfry

Randomness, patternlessness, can be generated with an algorithm.

Say, I'm the Cartesian deus deceptor (the evil demon) and I see someone about to play a coin-tossing game of chance.

Algorithm for randomness:

1. n = 1

2. If n is odd, make the outcome heads else n is even, make the outcome tails

3. n = n + 1

4 Goto 2

The person playing this game will see no pattern in the coin tosses. P(heads) = 50% = P(tails). In other words this person will think the outcomes (heads/tails) is random and for all intents and purposes if all possible outcomes (heads/tails) are equiprobable, it is considered random. However the deus deceptor used a simple algorithm to generate this randomness.

The term "ad hominem" refers to arguments. An insult is not an argument. — T Clark

True, an adhominem is a (fallacious) argument. The surest, commonest, mayhaps the only, way to commit it is by resorting to insults.

The question as to whether it cycles between balance and imbalance a different question, a very different question. — tim wood

Ebb & flow, ups & downs, wax & wane, crest & trough, peak & valley. These are all descriptions of the universe, life, everything that take into account flux, the dynamic quality of the universe. The ancient sages geometrized the pattern as a circle/cycle but a circle doesn't quite do the job as it's static. The more apposite geometrical object would be the sine wave which is the best fit for all that was listed in the first sentence of this paragraph.

If symmetry means balance of some kind, then the universe is either in balance or it is not in balance. To say that it is not now, but will be, is simply to say that it is not now. — tim wood

Insofar as my thesis, The Symmetry Method, is concerned, I'm only interested in the big picture and not in the details because I lack the esssential skills to undertake an enterprise that delves into minutiae. I know, I know, the devil is in the details. Suffice it to say that if everything has symmetry (thing vs anti-thing) then, it isn't too much of a stretch to employ symmetry as an axiom and from there to make the inference that an anti-thing (an opposite) exists because a thing does.

What if the universe has symmetry but is not all symmetric. In this scenario not every thing would require to have an opposite even if some things do. — Daniel

That's a contradiction. The instant an opposite is missing, that which suffers from this condition loses what can be called the contrast it needs to exist.

A coupla weeks ago a Mr. David Pearce, transhumsnist, was espousing his view that one day, it's hoped, suffering will be eradicated (Abolition of suffering he calls it) and everyone, it's predicted, will be, his own words, superhappy.

Transhumanism is a fairy tale that could become reality and it has a happy ending. However, what I couldn't fathom was (super)happiness sans suffering of some type to some degree. Posthumans wouldn't know the value of superhappiness if they don't know what suffering is. Yin-Yang. What is yin? Not yang! What is yang? Not yin!

A little thought experiment to drive home the point. Take a blue ball and keep it against one, a red background and two, a blue background. Would you be able to see the blue ball in the second case (blue background)? No! A thing and its opposite are existentially co-dependent i.e. one can't exist sans the other!

This is very similar to my own BothAnd worldview, in which all parts of the world have balancing counterparts. — Gnomon

:up:

dualism was necessary to create distinctions — Gnomon

:up: Check out my reply to Daniel.

Unfortunately, this exposition of the Symmetry Axiom, may have too many variables — Gnomon

Just two: Thing vs Anti-thing!

The idea is simply that the laws of physics can't account for the laws of logic, as they belong to completely different levels — Wayfarer

I share your sentiments on that score.

The whole is more than the sum of its parts — Aristotle

I'm actually surprised that physicalists/reductionists find this a hard pill to swallow. They have a very good instance of what Aristotle's is saying right in front of their noses viz. the inanimate-animate gap [there's no physical explanation how the nonliving (chemicals) come together to produce life].

If we view universe as a massive (self) organizing system then we have warrant to believe that each level organizes in such a way that out of it emerges a different level that has properties/qualities and governing laws that are unique to it and is more than just the sum of the parts at the level below it. Since each level has its own distinct set of properties/qualities and laws, each level deserves its own corresponding explanatory theoretical framework.

Life even if physicalists/reductionists claim it's only physical is a case in point - failure of reductionism!

$5 a week? I don't know. — frank

Google!

I thought we both thought it was bullshit — frank

Well, if it's all bullshit, why fret!

Pity doesn't interfere with nature selection, does it? — frank

You're asking the wrong question. The right question: how does pity contribute to evolution?

Hot-cold, Good-bad, Tall-short, Big-small, male-female, up-down, left-right, but more importantly, something you for certain will understand: is (p) and is not (~p).

Matter-antimatter asymmetry =/= "Yin-Yang" complementarity. C'mon, dude... :sweat: — 180 Proof

Asymmetry is a phase. Yin-Yang is dynamic (ebb & flow, rise & fall, wax & wane, crest & trough, peak & valley, my God, I didn't know there are so many ways to write this idea down).