"One of the advantages in thinking of randomness in terms of equipotential is that is allows us to bypass many of the tricky debates about causality in a rather clear and unambiguous manner."

In that sense it actually becomes an attempt to balance causality ( or confounding variable) across equally possible outcomes. As in taking a random sample; in order to make sure the groups are as similar as can be, randomization gives a high probability of fair distribution of the confounding variables.

" is concept far better suited to the laboratory than to nature: by design, it can only operate in the context of a stable, "

Right, I doubt there are situations, which are not orchestrated by humans, that have equal possible outcomes for all the variables being considered. However, I am reluctant to separate it along the lines of natural and unnatural, as I consider humans part of nature.

"It's a wonderful scientific tool, but a poor philosophical one."

That part I have to disagree on, as in a sense I feel science is an application of philosophy.

The more I have been thinking about this, the more I have to agree with your statement here:

"Conversely, 'non-randomness', or order, would be the culling of probable outcomes so that some are more likely than others."

I think randomness is about control or lack of control and unpredictability is consequential. And, from a mathematical point of view: Probability is the proportion of the various possible outcomes of the repeated exercise of a random event. So while probability has a relation to randomness, I am not so sure it is itself randomness. So I guess over all I agree with your assessment.

Yep, as I don't care if you are mistake. Feel free to be as wrong as you like.

"Sorry to be so logical about this."

Is that what you are calling it?

"OK, well you can make it clearer exactly what your ontic commitments are when you say stuff like..."

Sure it is right at the start: "For all we know" And also, "our inability to see. . . "

But it was interesting watching you debate with yourself.

Nature doesn't produce dice. Only humans do. — apokrisis

Humans are part of nature so if they do, then nature does.

"So you are making the standard Laplacian complaint that, in principle, complete knowledge of nature is possible, and so all future events can be calculated from determinate microphysical laws."

No, I am not. I never made any such claim.

And if you take enough of them you'll develop superpowers.

"Altered states of mind" is an euphemism to make drugs that inhibit your cognitive functions sound better than they actually are. You mind is not "altered"; it is impaired.

But there are various variables that influences the number it rolls, which we simply are unable to see. We assume symmetry, but how precise is that symmetry? For all we know the cycle of the moon, or the time of the day could affect the number it lands on. So is it our inability to see all the variables and how it plays out that makes it unpredictable?

If so, then what does this mean when we select something at random? That we don't know what we are gonna get?

But what if we select something at random out of say 10 possible choices? Then we know what we are gonna get; we are gonna get one of the 10 possible choices, but it was still a random selection. Is that saying we have simply removed the decision form our hands, and allowed variables we can't see to make the selection?

"Sometimes a single word may describe an entire book"

That is a description; not an explanation.

"Can you not express your views in a paragraph or so?"

No.

"What's the difference between religion and philosophy?"

Already posted my views on their differences.

Assuming I understand you correctly, what is your standard for truth and meaningfulness? And how does religion fail? — TheMadFool

"what is your standard for truth and meaningfulness"

You want me to type out a book? I don't really think I could sufficiently answer that question on an internet forum.

"And how does religion fail?"

Never said it fails.

Perhaps there's a grain of truth hidden somewhere — TheMadFool

There is a grain of truth in every vague ill-defined statement. For example: It is best in the winter.

Depending upon the religion — Rich

Several religious groups are extremely dogmatic. I don't think you can single out science or philosophy on this one.

Yes, as we all know religion is never dogmatic.

"few seem to be satisfied with the answer"

Probably because they are empty phrases without any real meaning. I think you just say things because you like the way it sounds.

So then you see no difference between religion and philosophy?

Religion is a type of philosophy...

And vice versa — TheMadFool

How so?

Thanks for the link, Bitter Crank. I will read that, and in fact I was trying to find something more authoritative.

I see a subject, verb and direct object.

Can you seriously not see the question in the OP?

I am sorry, but do you really not understand the question?

I don't think your statement is accurate.

I think the main difference between the two is that philosophy is grounded in human wisdom, while religion is framed in a supposed transcendent wisdom.

Philosophy comes from humans, while religion supposedly comes from some higher source.

"Theist are not much better in my experience"

Of course, people are people are people are people.

I shouldn't be, but it is. There is a clear us vs. them mentality divided along the lines of believers and non-believers.

I think you are clearly bias. I don't even believe in gods and I consider your argument absurd.

Theist are people; theism is the belief in god. It is one thing to say theism is not rational, but to say theist are not rational is to say anyone who believes in god is not a rational person.

I am sure you have many irrational beliefs. Like the idea that theist cannot be rational. Try thinking about what you said.

""Rational Theist" seems to be a contradiction in terms."

Are you seriously suggesting that a theist cannot be rational?

I was born in September, so I still have a bit of time before the new year rolls in.

This is the crossroad I have come to so far:

If the experience shapes the belief (or "interpretation") the experience would be accessible to all; however, if the belief shapes the experience than it would be exclusive to that belief.

But that would raise a few more questions: Does one belief lead to one experience or is there more than one path? Does a belief have to be accepted as true or can it be assumed for the purpose of the experience?

Also, this does not fully address the other half of the question: Are there any rationales that are exclusive to a person because of their religious views or lack of religious views?

I stared this same thread in a religious forums if anyone wants to read their responses:

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/rational-theist-spiritual-atheist.194040/

I did this with another thread, and it is interesting to compare the differences.

Here is one of the better replies. I would be interested to see what people here think of what Sunstone had to say.

The mystical experience of oneness, which is sometimes interpreted as an experience of god, and which comes about when subject/object perception abruptly ceases while some sort of experiencing continues, is certainly not confined to any single religious tradition or practice. Doesn't matter whether you're Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Daoist, or from some other tradition -- that experience seems to be at its core something that can occur to anyone. However, how one interprets the experience, what they think it was all about -- whether, for instance, one thinks it is an experience of some god or not -- tends to depend on the predominant tradition or practice that one comes from. — Sunstone, post: 5012843, member: 499

This was my response to his post:

Are the interpretations necessarily exclusive due to religious views? Or is it possible that one person can interpret it many different ways regardless of their beliefs? Then it is further possible for a person to interpret it many different ways, but only accept one of those interpretations? — Jeremiahcp, post: 5012919, member: 61265

Well, you have told me what other people think, but what do you think?

If you can precisely model it in terms of mathematics or mechanistic causal process then you have something that is a matter for science. Anything that cannot be so modeled falls outside its ambit. — John

That is not true at all.

"The scope of any inference is constrained based on whether there is a random sample (RS) and/or random assignment (RA). [...] Random assignment allows for causal inferences for the differences that are observed - the difference in treatment levels causes differences in the mean responses. Random sampling (or at least some sort of representative sample) allows for inferences to be made to the population of interest. If we do no have RA, then causal inferences cannot be made. If we do not have a representative sample, then our inferences are limited to the sampled subjects. "

Greenwood, M., & Banner, K. (2016). A Second Semester Statistics Course with R (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Creative Commons. Page. 50

You can still have a statistical model with out RA, you just cannot make causal inferences. .

5:09 AM no sleep, ugh.

I am more than sure that would be a waste of my time, as I don't think you really care what I have to say.

No — schopenhauer1

Yes; you are just failing to see the connection.

This thread was resolved by m-theory on the fourth post.

Futile relative to what?

Suppose I decide to pursue one of two goals.
To spin gold from straw
Or
To get a glass of water from the tap

Obviously one of these goals is less futile than the other. — m-theory

If you want to make good conversations — intrapersona

Or I can just move on and find someone that doesn't need everything explained to them.

Philosophy has become the act of taking the simple and making it sound far more complicated than it is.

so vague it has many interpretations. — intrapersona

Only if you are purposely being obtuse. Let's get realistic here, the base concept is not that hard to grasp.