When it comes to the issue of whether the universe... is deterministic...or random... random and uncontrolled are synonymous. — universeness

How do you assess the following: when the researchers picked subjects to be tested for allergic reactions to dairy products, they controlled for anti-bias by selecting their subjects unsystematically, and thus, by random sampling, they were assured that the individuals chosen from the main set, each having had an equal chance of populating the subset, expressed unbiased representation of the whole.

In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (also known as a vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. They are minute random fluctuations in the values of the fields which represent elementary particles, such as electric and magnetic fields which represent the electromagnetic force carried by photons, W and Z fields which carry the weak force, and gluon fields which carry the strong force. — universeness

In the above quote, there is a wealth of information pertaining to quantum fluctuation. Within the quote there is a description of the means by which this phenomenon is observed: a quantum fluctuation (also known as a vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

How do you assess the role of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle with respect to the question of the relationship between randomness and prescription?

I agree they are both information processing. But the immediate response does not consist in reflection on the information. — Janus

You're sparring in the ring. Your boxing instructor is teaching you how to watch for your opponent's weak side. In the current lesson, the understanding is that you're boxing with a left-handed opponent. Your instructor throws a series of left-jabbing feints close to your eyes. The discipline is to make yourself watch the fake jabs and also watch his right hand because he's trying to get you absorbed in the fake jabs so he can cross you with his right and send you down to the canvas. With each series of feints, the left jabs get closer. You watch through three series of feints as his left gets closer to your eyes. In the fourth series his left comes to a fraction of an inch from your eyelashes, your eyes close and he crosses you with his right and drops you onto the canvas. Your autonomic nerve responsiveness was active throughout the series of feints; it wasn't until the fourth series that your eyes made a lightning-quick decision to close.

How do you assess the decision of your eyes?

I haven't said or implied that immediate responses cannot be conditioned by reflection or cannot be intentionally trained. It seems to me you are changing the subject.

How do you assess the following: when the researchers picked subjects to be tested for allergic reactions to dairy products, they controlled for anti-bias by selecting their subjects unsystematically, and thus, by random sampling, they were assured that the individuals chosen from the main set, each having had an equal chance of populating the subset, expressed unbiased representation of the whole. — ucarr

If I understand your example above, You are saying that the people chosen to participate in the test you describe, were chosen 'at random,' but you are also saying that they were chosen from a finite, limited domain size and thus, there is a known probability of a particular member of the domain size, being chosen, so that is not truly random, it's just choosing from a fixed domain size. I understand such examples as my expertise is Computing Science and I have worked with methods of producing 'random number generators' inside a computer based on the state of the clock pulse at any instant in a time reference which is external to the clock rate of the computer (ie, the time displayed on a clock app on the same computer). So we have 'truly random' against 'the probability of choosing any single member of a fixed domain.' What you have to cognise, is that the concept of the existence of a fixed domain of possibilities, does not match the realities of QM. For example, superposition supports the possibility of a multiverse. How many universes in a multiverse? The size of that domain can never be known!
Infinity is a concept, it can never be a measure. So if your source domain size is unknowable then picking an exemplar from that domain is truly random, imo ( or at least, as close to the concept of truly random that we are ever going to get, again imo.)

In the above quote, there is a wealth of information pertaining to quantum fluctuation. Within the quote there is a description of the means by which this phenomenon is observed: a quantum fluctuation (also known as a vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

How do you assess the role of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle with respect to the question of the relationship between randomness and prescription? — ucarr

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a principle of quantum mechanics that limits the accuracy with which the position and momentum of a particle can be measured or predicted

You cannot know the momentum and the position at the same time. When you measure one, say position, then you could predict the other, but your prediction would be truly random, as the domain of possibilities falls into the concept of infinite. Quantum fluctuations happen at every possible coordinate in space at every plank time duration, (perhaps at every, even smaller than plank time duration, which we can never get any info about, as we would be in black hole territory (I think.))

So, to try to reflect, using the terms you asked for. Under Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, you can 'prescribe' position or momentum but not both at once, as when you measure one, the other can be at best, randomly guestimated, based on previous measures of the momentum/position of the same type of particulate.

How do you assess the decision of your eyes? — ucarr

How do you asses such decisions of your brain (as your eyes don't make decisions)?

Choose a film title!
Choose another film title!
Why did your brain choose the first one before the second one?
Was that choice determined for you, or did your brain employ its ability to make a truly random choice and therefore demonstrate, that a prime mover is as unnecessary, as it is unwelcome?

I'm thinking of intentionality as planning, as having reasons for action, not simply as response to environments. Thinking and deliberate action: I believe some animals can do it, so it's not only a human thing. — Janus

When we recoil from the fast approach of a flying object, the autonomic system is processing info no less than when we reflect deeply upon, say, a complex moral dilemma. The difference, I believe, consists in the resolution of the cognitive processing per unit of time. Deep reflection is high-res processing whereas instinct is low-res processing.
— ucarr

I agree they are both information processing. But the immediate response does not consist in reflection on the information. When there is reflection, the active outcome cannot be predicted with certainty, whereas the immediate response consisting in acquired habit, is much more predictable. For me, that is the salient difference between intentional action and simple internally directed action. — Janus

I haven't said or implied that immediate responses cannot be conditioned by reflection or cannot be intentionally trained. It seems to me you are changing the subject. — Janus

Can you elaborate when and how conditioning and intentional training of immediate responses preclude rather than program autonomic reflection_intentionality?

Note - In this situation, programmed reflection_intentionality, viewed from an info-processing standpoint, entails reflection_intentionality enactment upon preset reflection_intentionality.

Example -- Your eyes, for defense, are programmed to shut if a material object crosses a threshold marking unacceptable proximity. When that threshold is crossed by a material object, autonomic processing does an assessment of what the standard is, i.e., what is the threshold. On top of that, it does an assessment of what it is programmed to do when the threshold is breached. The first assessment is reflection upon the programming. The second assessment is reflection upon the reflection upon the programming.

These two tiers of reflection processing, per Alan Turing, simulate successfully the appearance of human intelligence. Consequently, machines, via humanoid processing, give the
appearance of human intelligence and thus should be treated, at least situationally, as human sentience.

In my parallel argument here, autonomic info processing successfully simulates reflection and should thus be regarded as such. This argument, in turn, connects to my main theme herein: as U.E.S. (upwardly evolving sentient) progresses in its simulation of the cosmic consciousness of theism, said simulation should be treated as cosmic consciousness.

…you are saying that the people chosen to participate in the test you describe, were chosen 'at random,' but you are also saying that they were chosen from a finite, limited domain size and thus, there is a known probability of a particular member of the domain size, being chosen, so that is not truly random, it's just choosing from a fixed domain size… — universeness

Infinity is a concept, it can never be a measure. So if your source domain size is unknowable then picking an exemplar from that domain is truly random, imo ( or at least, as close to the concept of truly random that we are ever going to get, again imo.) — universeness

Your two above quotes acknowledge empirical limitations on randomness.

…we have 'truly random' against 'the probability of choosing any single member of a fixed domain.' — universeness

Your above quote suggests that “randomness,” like “infinity” is more concept than empirical reality.

What you have to cognise, is that the concept of the existence of a fixed domain of possibilities, does not match the realities of QM. — universeness

The set of measurable domains is infinite. Is this an oxymoron? To elaborate, if one wishes to make a general statement about selection probability from measurable sets as a whole, then, per your argument, measurable selection probability in general is impossible, or, if the converse applies, randomization via infinity is impossible or measurable selection probability in general and randomization are both, paradoxically, possible.

…you can 'prescribe' position or momentum but not both at once, as when you measure one, the other can be at best, randomly guestimated, based on previous measures of the momentum/position of the same type of particulate. — universeness

QM is centrally concerned with discrete, measurable boundaries, as indicated by “quantum.” Particle_wave duality keeps one foot of QM planted within a Newtonian context. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, as a predictive measurement of one or the other components of the particle vector, serves Newtonian physics no less than QM.

Our context for the randomness/predictability debate, as we both seem to agree, allows for a mixture of both poles.

How does a controlled system counter-balance random processes with predictable processes?

When a theoretician is designing a control system’s supporting math framework, generation of infinite values compels the theoretician to re-design the framework so as to avoid infinite values lest the measurement and control functions be lost. I take this to be (some part of) the rationale behind your claim infinite conceptualizations, with respect to probability and statistics, are truly random.

In the case of infinite conceptualizations within a Newtonian context, do humans leave the empirical realm in favor of the realm of mind? Claiming: Infinity is a concept, it can never be a measure. tells us infinity is never encountered empirically. This, in turn, tells us true randomness likewise is never encountered empirically. Does not this lead us to conclude that randomly generated lifeforms, and their processional runup to life forms actualization are also, likewise, never encountered empirically? This means that truly random actualization processes culminating in empirical lifeforms is pure theory without empirical counterpart.

If, on the other hand, QM is the context wherein truly random, a-bio-genesis life forms actualize, then must we conclude that QM life forms are, by force of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, fundamentally only partially verifiable & knowable within the realm of conceptually infinite universes, themselves empirically impossible because unmeasurable?

Another option is that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, by prescribing correctly quantum fluctuations, thus making them predictable, collapses QM superposition multiverses and true randomness along with it. This leads us to conclude that at the human scale of empirical experience, no life forms are randomly generated.

If randomness is confined within the QM multiverses of superposition, then the predictability of rational control systems within the Newtonian scale of human empirical reality crowds out randomness completely.

This leaves us to conclude that U.E.S. (upwardly evolving sentience), eventually, will reconcile wave-particle duality in the interest of a harmonious randomness/control counter-balance.

How do you asses such decisions of your brain... — universeness

Was that choice determined for you, or did your brain employ its ability to make a truly random choice... — universeness

Infinity is a concept, it can never be a measure. So if your source domain size is unknowable then picking an exemplar from that domain is truly random, imo ( or at least, as close to the concept of truly random that we are ever going to get, again imo.) — universeness

In your above quote, you answer your own question above that by claiming truly random (therefore "free") choice can only happen, or approach happening, within sets of infinite possibilities which, as I interpret in my previous post above, you claim are only conceptual and therefore not empirical.

Your two above quotes acknowledge empirical limitations on randomness. — ucarr

Not in any way that lets, determinism move to the front. Determinism is as empirically limited as randomness.

Your above quote suggests that “randomness,” like “infinity” is more concept than empirical reality. — ucarr

Well there is connection yes, in that the concept of infinity IS a placeholder label for a domain source with an unknowable number of members, like the set of everything, in mathematics.
But there is nothing there, that assists a claim that the universe is deterministic or that intent and teleology play the dominant role you have suggested.

How does a controlled system counter-balance random processes with predictable processes? — ucarr

No control system exists or (imo) can ever exist, that can fully protect against all possible random happenstance, as such information is unavailable in this universe.

Claiming: Infinity is a concept, it can never be a measure. tells us infinity is never encountered empirically. — ucarr

But it is! 1/0, for example. Sure, you can program a machine that will produce an 'error' code or put a message on the screen stating that this calculation is undefined etc but no such actions prevents the mathematical existence of 1/0.

This, in turn, tells us true randomness likewise is never encountered empirically. — ucarr

But it IS encountered empirically. You cannot know the momentum and the position of a particle at the same time! You can only measure one and randomly predict the other.

Does not this lead us to conclude that randomly generated lifeforms, and their processional runup to life forms actualization are also, likewise, never encountered empirically? — ucarr

No, it suggests that random abiogenesis is not impossible, neither is affect coming before cause in some QM states. The quantum Eraser experiment is a nice example of the issues involved:

There are two sides, in the issues involved however ( surprise surprise eh!)

that an ontological juxtaposition will lead to incommensurability.

I am not a substance dualist.

I'm not seeing any relevance of your questions to what I've said, so unless you can show me some relevance, I have nothing to say at this point.

...an ontological juxtaposition will lead to incommensurability. — Banno

I don't know what this is. Can you give me an everyday example?

↪ucarr I haven't said or implied that immediate responses cannot be conditioned by reflection or cannot be intentionally trained. It seems to me you are changing the subject. — Janus

↪ucarr I'm not seeing any relevance of your questions to what I've said, so unless you can show me some relevance, I have nothing to say at this point. — Janus

My previous post to you is my response to your top quote above, which I interpret as follows:

Through drilling, training towards conditioned responses instills, by rote, immediate responses of the autonomic system. A familiar example is the Pavlov autonomic response: every time a dog is fed supper over a series of feedings, a whistle sounds. Subsequently, whenever the whistle sounds, the conditioned response of the dog is to salivate.

From this interpretation I proceed to claim that the salivation of the dog involves autonomic processing of the drilled memory of the sound of the whistle. That's the dog's brain reflecting upon the objective whistle heard previously. Atop this reflection, I claim theoretically, that the autonomic processing of the remembered whistle as a trigger for salivation is reflection upon a reflection. I cite this two-tiered reflective, autonomic info processing as a dog-brain simulation of the intentional human drilling of the dog's triggered response: salivation at the sound of a whistle. Throughout this conversation, I've been propounding the thesis that sometimes a simulation stands as good as the original.

Now you have an opportunity to show my reasoning false. I don't think you have a strong case for showing my reasoning irrelevant to your claims. You are, of course, free to make the latter case; I want you, however, to go beyond a mere declaration of error by providing your finding with a supporting argument.

Your two above quotes acknowledge empirical limitations on randomness.
— ucarr

Not in any way that lets, determinism move to the front. Determinism is as empirically limited as randomness. — universeness

Infinity is a concept, it can never be a measure. So if your source domain size is unknowable then picking an exemplar from that domain is truly random, imo ( or at least, as close to the concept of truly random that we are ever going to get, again imo.) — universeness

You explained random sampling is not true randomness. You followed by saying true randomness exists within the domain of infinity.

Claiming: Infinity is a concept, it can never be a measure. tells us infinity is never encountered empirically.
— ucarr

But it is! 1/0, for example. Sure, you can program a machine that will produce an 'error' code or put a message on the screen stating that this calculation is undefined etc but no such actions prevents the mathematical existence of 1/0. — universeness

1/0 is another infinite value.

This, in turn, tells us true randomness likewise is never encountered empirically.
— ucarr

But it IS encountered empirically. You cannot know the momentum and the position of a particle at the same time! You can only measure one and randomly predict the other. — universeness

I speculate that the measurement-resistant variable within Heisenberg Uncertainty makes an asymptotic approach to unmeasurable inaccuracy. As this graph of increasing inaccuracy is a measurement unending, clearly, it is not random.

Claiming measurement of the measurement-resistant variable within Heisenberg Uncertainty is random exemplifies doubling back upon the Heisenberg equation and erasing it. By definition, the equation is a measure of uncertainty. If what is labeled uncertain cannot to any extent be predicted, then that's not uncertain but rather unknowable. The equation is a statistical tool. In the realm of randomness, statistics cannot get started. This tells us that the equation, dealing as it does in asymptotically increasing uncertainty, never addresses an unknowable variable. This tells us that the equation is not an empirical example of the unmeasurable.

Does not this lead us to conclude that randomly generated lifeforms, and their processional runup to life forms actualization are also, likewise, never encountered empirically?
— ucarr

No, it suggests that random abiogenesis is not impossible, neither is affect coming before cause in some QM states. The quantum Eraser experiment is a nice example of the issues involved: — universeness

I think the conclusion should be restated as: It suggests that random abiogenesis is theoretically approachable, albeit not empirically expressible.

True randomness, on the basis of your evidence here, appears to be confined to a QM math graph. Perhaps this is a good thing. Who, living within human empirical experience, wants to contend with a lot of (or even a few) truly free, uncontrollable variables affecting events in their life, especially vital and important events like survival and happiness?

In this conversation, I want to examine whether or not positing evolution in place of a creator amounts, in the end, to the same thing as ... — ucarr

Evolution explains the development of life and not its origin like (so called) "creationism", so it's no more a substitute for an inexplicable (alleged)"creator" than astronomy is "posited in place of" astrology or modern medicine is "posited in place of" faith-healing. Evidence-based stories and evidence-free (faith-based) stories have incommensurable discursive functions and are not interchangeable, or substituteable one for the other.

... positing a creator in place of evolution.

"A creator" is either "posited in place of" We Don't Know Yet – as a creator-of-the-gaps placeholder – or bullshitted denialism of modern evolutionary biology.

You explained random sampling is not true randomness. You followed by saying true randomness exists within the domain of infinity. — ucarr

Well, your quote above is mostly correct but I did not claim 'true randomness,' exists. To be as clear as I can be, I personally assign a credibility level to the proposal that true random happenstance exists, at 99.999%. The same credibility I assign to the proposal that god has no, nor ever has had, any exemplar existent. Proving 100% that random happenstance is the fundamental driver of the universe, and the origin of the universe is not deterministic and had zero intent or teleology behind it, is still in debate.

100% proof may not be possible. Again you keep making 'small slips' in your conceptualisation of infinity. Infinity by definition, has no domain, no fixed number of members, as it is not a measure. It cannot really be collapsed into an instantaneous measure such as an average etc, like position or momentum, can be separately collapsed and instantaneously measured/approximated.
You must also appreciate that no measure that humans can perform is an absolute measure. All measurements are only accurate to some arbitrary number of decimal points. But 'points of change,' or 'tipping points,' exist.
At a density of x.0000000000x, the neutron star does not become a black hole but perhaps at x.00000000000x, it does 'change/tip over and become a black hole.
That extra tiny, tiny decimal place, can be what is needed to 'tip the balance'/cause the change.

What is the absolute speed of light in a vacuum or the absolute value of py? We don't know and we probably never will. To me, no absolute values/measurements, is further evidence against a deterministic universe and the omni states and the existence of god.

Here is an example of how poor our approximate measurements can be, when science tries to explain stuff to relatively lay folks such as myself:
When the mass of the remnant core lies between 1.4 and about 2 solar masses, it apparently becomes a neutron star, with a density more than a million times greater than even that of a white dwarf.

1/0 is another infinite value. — ucarr

No, its a placeholder that supports the concept of infinity, but you have to drill down a little more.
1 and 0 represent the two binary states of 'something' and 'nothing' or 'exists' and 'does not exist.'
But, the concept of 'nothing' or 'absence of something,' has no exemplar, we can access or refer to as a referent is itself not nothing. So using a circle or oval, as a glyph, to represent nothing, is invalid and can actually only represent 'zero' or an empty set or empty variable/container, but the container (the 0) is an existent.

1/0 is really a mathematical proposal that asks how many times can 'nothing' be subtracted from (same as divided from or separated from), something? The answer is obviously, 'as often as you like,' which you can replace with a relatively meaningless placeholder label such as infinity. There is no way to 'determine' anything from 1/0. Other than a placeholder label for 'we have no answer!' because it seems the universe is not deterministic (still can't prove it 100%, other than 'beyond reasonable doubt,' imo) and random happenstance cannot be fully controlled or prevented. This is why I asked you earlier if you thought that a mindless spark beginning to the 'Cosmos' or to that which may well now be eternal, could have been prevented?

I think the conclusion should be restated as: It suggests that random abiogenesis is theoretically approachable, albeit not empirically expressible.

True randomness, on the basis of your evidence here, appears to be confined to a QM math graph. Perhaps this is a good thing. Who, living within human empirical experience, wants to contend with a lot of (or even a few) truly free, uncontrollable variables affecting events in their life, especially vital and important events like survival and happiness? — ucarr

I like your wording here ucarr, This quote reads to me like a 'fair,' 'well meaning,' but disgruntled protest about how frustrating the universe is for lifeforms such as us who exist inside it.
Could that be a good definition of anyone with theistic or theosophistic leanings, (as opposed to the nefarious peddlers of religious doctrine that has plagued and damaged our species so badly since the first human b*****d, that used it to opiate a mass of their fellows.)
Is a 'palatable' theist, someone who is somewhat disgruntled at the complexity of the universe, and how difficult knowing its true structure, workings and origin is proving to be. :smile:

an ontological juxtaposition will lead to incommensurability. — Banno

Firstly, let me speculate that your latest post to me, whether intentionally or accidentally, helpfully provides a plain-English explanation of the, as usual (at least for me), terse and cryptic communication from Banno.

Evidence-based stories and evidence-free (faith-based) stories have incommensurable discursive functions and are not interchangeable, or substituteable one for the other. — 180 Proof

If, in your above quote, you intend "discursive" in the sense of "reasoned argument" (rather than in the sense of "multi-faceted"), I'm pleasantly surprised you ascribe logic to faith-based stories.

The challenge here is understanding whether two separate modes of travel, incommensurable, can nonetheless terminate at the same location. Let's suppose the two modes of travel each employ irrational numbers while going forward. This supposition employs "incommensurable" as it is defined within the context of math: "a ratio that cannot be expressed as a ratio of integers."

Examples: a) the approach of theism toward an origin story by irrational number progression exemplifies in the asymptotic progression of U.E.S. (upwardly evolving sentience) by way of its cognitive simulation of cosmic creator; b) the approach of atheism toward an origin story by irrational number progression exemplifies in the asymptotic progression of U.E.S. by way of its cognitive simulation of abiogenesis.

The above statement is my counter-argument to your implication two incommensurable modes of progression cannot terminate at the same location. At the first order of commensurability, they are incommensurable; at the second order of commensurability, they are, by way of sameness of termination, commensurable.

Proving 100% that random happenstance is the fundamental driver of the universe, and the origin of the universe is not deterministic and had zero intent or teleology behind it, is still in debate. — universeness

I'm in no hurry to declare, with sweeping grandeur, the determinism of our universe. On the other hand, logic and predictable continuity, being so essential to my confidence going forward in life, have endeared themselves to me. I must therefore, in the interest of integrity, confess my bias in their favor over and above randomness. As I said last time, I'm skeptical about your affection for randomness beyond its possible usefulness driving abiogenesis through the eye of the needle of practical experience.

I did not claim 'true randomness,' exists — universeness

You did claim infinity exists as a concept. If, as I suspect, infinity (with the exception of Cantor's orders of magnitude of infinite sets) is a useless value within math calculations, then infinity as empirical reality likewise has no practical model. This claim therefore strongly suggests randomness, a close associate of infinity, likewise has no practical model.

Consider also that a model (of something), being an ordered, coherent entity, could but paradoxically express randomness. The route towards randomness within the domain of empirical experience is through de-coherence. De-coherence of our practical universe in search of randomness must be a paradoxical quest. Destroying the order of the universe for the sake of abiogenesis, being a thoroughly paradoxical quest, expresses as being absurd. If my thinking is correct that randomness can only be viewed through the lens of randomness, imagine what a perplexity that presents to the rationalism of science.

Question -- Does randomness, a comprehensible, abstract concept, have any way, given its definition, to express itself comprehensibly as empirical experience? This comes on the heels of your lesson: the random sampling of statistics is not random.

100% proof may not be possible. Again you keep making 'small slips' in your conceptualisation of infinity. Infinity by definition, has no domain, no fixed number of members, as it is not a measure. It cannot really be collapsed into an instantaneous measure such as an average etc, like position or momentum, can be separately collapsed and instantaneously measured/approximated. — universeness

I stand corrected by you very useful clarification. I do, however, possess one, faint "however." What about the cloud of probable positions of an elementary particle, as measured by Heisenberg and related equations? Cloud imparts to me a boundary I understand as being fuzzy, but perceptible. Are the possible positions within the QM probability cloud finite, or infinite?

'points of change,' or 'tipping points,' exist. — universeness

My guess is that tipping points are another example of the QM probability cloud.

1/0 is another infinite value.
— ucarr
No, its a placeholder that supports the concept of infinity, — universeness

1/0 is really a mathematical proposal that asks how many times can 'nothing' be subtracted from (same as divided from or separated from), something? — universeness

There is no way to 'determine' anything from 1/0. — universeness

Given 1/0 signs for infinity, expressing Shakespeare's "To be, or not to be," and concluding this foundational binary is truly essential and cannot express as anything but itself, thus signing itself as self-evident truth, I might think of it henceforth as "the existential binary."

Your present (at least) three intriguing paradoxes:

not-existence ⇒ being a phenomenon, exists, a paradox

1/0 ⇒ nothing subtracted from something; nothing, being a subtractive something, renders nothing subtracted from something a paradox

Proving the universe 100% not deterministic ⇒ such a proof of not-determinism is determinism, a paradox

Let's consider some symmetry:

It seems the universe is not deterministic and randomness cannot be precluded <> It seems the universe is not random and continuity cannot be precluded

Below are three complex paradoxes

The above symmetry expresses 1/0, the existential binary with continuity = 1 or existence and randomness = 0 or not-existence

Continuity = existence because continuity is binary per the existential binary ⇒ things connect, including the infinite regress of not-existence

Randomness = not-existence because not-existence is not-existence which includes everything, including randomness and existence ⇒ not-existence connects to nothing, including not-connecting with itself, not connecting with not connecting with itself...(infinite regress)

The infinite regress of not-existence suggests to me infinity is, within the realm of the material universe,
ultimately meaningless.

I like your wording here ucarr, This quote reads to me like a 'fair,' 'well meaning,' but disgruntled protest about how frustrating the universe is for lifeforms such as us who exist inside it. — universeness

I thank you for your useful semi-layperson's translations of current science into plain english.

:smile:
I loved your dance with logic, expressed in all it's textual glory.
Each twist and turn of the ballet, caused yet another encounter with your paradoxical dance partner.
Still, I enjoyed the dance! The debate goes on. I hope that the odd time when I still feel brave enough or interested enough to join the dance, random happenstance will always be a contributing factor, as full determinism, control from an exterior intent and a teleological necessity, makes any dancing, rather pointless imo.

Closing Statement:

As far as what I learned from this conversation, I'm wondering if, above all else, atheism seeks to deny necessary supplication before a dictatorial overlord in the sky via belief in abiogenesis devoid of intent.

This raises an important question: Is it correct to think atheism, structurally speaking, contains a foundational, two-chamber organization? In the first chamber there's evolution from abiogenesis devoid of intent through advent of life forms; in the second chamber there's evolution of life forms through advent of intent within advanced sentients.

A related question, following from this: During the first chamber period of evolution, does there exist a proto-intent antecedent necessary to the subsequent advent of intent proper within advanced sentients?

It occurs to me what's riding on the answer to the above question is the question whether the universe, down to its foundational components (atoms, molecules, elements, compounds, energy and spacetime) stands before us as an essentially intent-bearing universe meaning, therefore, with enough time, intentional consciousness will appear?

Another important question arising from this, as based upon the natural-seeming tendency towards the supposition that consciousness implies intent, is whether consciousness and intent are no less essential to animate, material universes than atoms, molecules, elements, compounds, energy and spacetime?

A major question for me is: Does my simulation-symmetry theory describe a real component within the structure of animate, material universes?

The essentials of my first-draft of simulation-symmetry include:

01) All forms of consciousness find their source in creation’s eternal elusiveness.

02) Consciousness is an emergent property of animate, material universes

03) Consciousness is isomorphic to itself

04) History is simulation-symmetry directed towards isomorphism within the God-sentient dialog.

05) Simulation-symmetry – the God-sentient dialog, spiraling within the maelstrom of the being_not-being binary of essential drama is the fox chasing its tail across spacetime. Wordsworth, translated to the cosmic scale, gives us the transition from: “Child is father of the man” to: Sentience begets transcendence. The way to disappear God is to become God: Cosmic stalemate.

As far as what I learned from this conversation, I'm wondering if, above all else, atheism seeks to deny necessary supplication before a dictatorial overlord in the sky via belief in abiogenesis devoid of intent. — ucarr

I wouldn't think so. Atheism is just one thing - a disbelief in gods. Some atheists believe in astrology and ghosts. Some are logical positivists. There is no atheist worldview. It's just that most of the famous ones, like Dawkins are inclined towards scientism and rail against religion.

The nature of purported gods is unknown to us, but we have a plethora of stories contained in world religions and in personal interpretations of those systems. For my money, we are incapable of making sense of this vast range of contradictory and complicated literature, but people being meaning making creatures, will almost always invent a foundational narrative to carry them through life.

I am an atheist with minimal interest in cosmology. The origin of the universe, how life came about, the nature of consciousness, are speculative and almost irrelevant to my experience of life. I am not concerned with scientistic system building or trying to explain reality. Even experts of genius struggle to grapple with these matters and disagree with each other.

For me, the arguments for or against god are of minimal significance. They are only useful in tackling the arrogance of fundamentalism - a demonstration that certainty sits on unstable foundations.

For me, belief in god is like a sexual preference - you are likely born with predilections, tastes, dispositions. I have no sensus divinitatis and if you have no capacity to take the idea of gods seriously and there are no gods around to meet, all you have left is a bunch of mouldering and sometimes complicated arguments which never quite satisfy anyone.

. Atheism is just one thing - a disbelief in gods. — Tom Storm

I think it's much broader and more diffuse than that - it's rejection of whatever is considered 'the supernatural' or even 'the sacred' (or arguably the identification of 'the sacred' with 'the natural'). Also, that amongst the apparent proliferation of ideas, there are some unified themes around this orientation. I think @ucarr is correct in identifying the conviction that life arises from non-life (abiogenesis) is central to that belief system. That is clearly related to the question of the nature of mind (does mind arise as a byproduct of a non-intentional interaction of physical attributes?) And clearly, the nature of intentionality - as to whether that is something that can arise fortuitously from physical causes - is related to it.

It's worth recalling that early Buddhism (I distinguish it from later forms, as they are replete with celestial beings who to all intents are gods or demi-gods) eschewed all belief in a creator deity, yet one of the attributes of the Buddha is that he is 'lokuttara', meaning 'world-transcending'. So even though Buddhism is often described as a- or non-theist, it is still at odds with today's naturalism in that respect, which highlights the sense in which atheism denies more than simply belief in God.

I'm not atheist, although I have no doubt my Christian forbears would believe me so. I think the popular depictions of God are much nearer to the Roman Jupiter (a name descended from the indo-european 'Sky Father') than what I understand the name to denote. We forget that religious mythologies originate from a different epoch, and also that they are addressed to people at many different stages of understanding. In any case, the grand tradition of religion and philosophy, shorn of any idea of the sacred or of an underlying and unifying intelligence, is, in my view, always on the edge of disintegration, nihilism and irrationality, which we see writ large in social and political affairs in today's world.

(As @'ucarr' has labelled his last post as a 'closing statement', I'm inclined to leave it there, as no doubt this perennial question will continue in various guises in other threads ad infinitum.)

For me, the arguments for or against god are of minimal significance. They are only useful in tackling the arrogance of fundamentalism - a demonstration that certainty sits on unstable foundations.

For me, belief in god is like a sexual preference - you are likely born with predilections, tastes, dispositions. I have no sensus divinitatis and if you have no capacity to take the idea of gods seriously and there are no gods around to meet, all you have left is a bunch of mouldering and sometimes complicated arguments which never quite satisfy anyone. — Tom Storm

Would you welcome god(s) to break bread with you before making such offer to fundamentalists?

I think it's much broader and more diffuse than that - it's rejection of whatever is considered 'the supernatural' or even 'the sacred' (or arguably the identification of 'the sacred' with 'the natural') — Quixodian

Yes, I’ve addressed that. I know many atheists who accept astrology, ghosts, Bigfoot, etc.

I also know atheist idealists.

I think atheism is less totalising that some of the famous polemicists would have us think. Maybe it’s more the secular humanist skeptics?

I think ucarr is correct in identifying the conviction that life arises from non-life (abiogenesis) is central to that belief system. — Quixodian

Many hold to this. I wish more folks would just say ‘who knows’ and just go back to being useful. Life and consciousness are a mystery for now. It may well be the product of natural phenomena but who can say? Would we utterly reject this and insert a gods ‘holding statement’ to take care of it? Sounds like a ‘gaps’ problem.

I'm not atheist, although I have no doubt my Christian forbears would believe me so. — Quixodian

I think you probably are. What you are not is a scientistic materialist.

Would you welcome god(s) to break bread with you before making such offer to fundamentalists? — ucarr

I’m always happy to accept guests as long as they are courteous and kind. Even fundamentalists, of which my Grandmother was one.

...that life arises from non-life (abiogenesis) is central to that belief system. That is clearly related to the question of the nature of mind (does mind arise as a byproduct of a non-intentional interaction of physical attributes?) And clearly, the nature of intentionality - as to whether that is something that can arise fortuitously from physical causes - is related to it.

It's worth recalling that early Buddhism (I distinguish it from later forms, as they are replete with celestial beings who to all intents are gods or demi-gods) eschewed all belief in a creator deity, yet one of the attributes of the Buddha is that he is 'lokuttara', meaning 'world-transcending'. So even though Buddhism is often described as a- or non-theist, it is still at odds with today's naturalism in that respect, which highlights the sense in which atheism denies more than simply belief in God. — Quixodian

Your helpful observations are illuminating. The question of the origin of intentionality, like that of life, directs our thoughts to whether the transfer across generations requires intentionality-to-intentionality on the one hand and, life-to-life on the other. This question is further energized by the thought that life implies consciousness which, in turn, implies intentionality.

Lab science has come close to fabricating synthetic life in a petrie dish:

Scientists at JCVI constructed the first cell with a synthetic genome in 2010. They didn’t build that cell completely from scratch. Instead, they started with cells from a very simple type of bacteria called a mycoplasma. They destroyed the DNA in those cells and replaced it with DNA that was designed on a computer and synthesized in a lab. This was the first organism in the history of life on Earth to have an entirely synthetic genome. They called it JCVI-syn1.0. --scitechdaily.com

The important question is how close? Is bio-tech just a step or two away from fabricating life from scratch? Let's suppose lab scientists will successfully fabricate life from non-living ingredients. What then remains is the small scale question whether non-living ingredients can organize themselves into living organisms without the steerage of lab scientists. In the synthetic life fabrication at JCVI, the highly advanced intentionality of the lab scientists must be counted as a God-like force acting as prime mover in the fabrication of synthetic life from organic life. This even more so if bio-tech upwardly evolves to human bio-tech engineering from only non-living ingredients.

So, for sake of clarification, true abiogenesis devoid of intentionality means randomly occurring configurations of non-living ingredients that cohere into living organisms with intentionality present neither internal to the random occurring configuration nor external to it in the form of steerage from advanced sentients.

Is bio-tech just a step or two away from fabricating life from scratch? — ucarr

I was told that a journalist once asked Craig Venter, the prominent biotechnologist, if he was concerned about the accusation that he might be 'playing God'. His answer, according to the account I read, was that 'we're not playing!' It's as if, once we 'crack the code', then we might become able to engineer fully self-creating life-forms. I'm sure there are those in transhumanist circles who would dream of electric sheep. It would seem to set us free once and for all from any existential dependency on an agency other than ourselves.

The larger philosophical question also really interests me. I think Darwin's musing that life itself originated in a 'warm little pond' as a kind of spontaneous chemical reaction has had big impact on the popular imagination, even if Darwin himself didn't make too much of it. Philosophically, the religious origin story situates humankind in a cosmic context and provides a role in the grand scheme. Whereas the idea that life is a kind of runaway chemical reaction - something that materialist philosopher Daniel Dennett argues for in his infamous book Darwin's Dangerous Idea - conforms with the nihilism of the modern age. And I don't think that's just idle musing or academic speculation. A feeling of relatedness to the cosmos is to a really fundamental need and I myself am always on a quest for a philosophical perspective that provides it.

But then the scientific analysis of what the conditions were that gave rise to the first organisms is not necessarily incompatible with a religious outlook. Pierre Tielhard du Chardin seemed to be open to both perspectives. Theosodius Dobzhansky, one of the authors of the modern genetic synthesis, and originator of the phrase 'nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution', remained a devout Orthodox Christian. He authored a book later in life called The Biology of Ultimate Concern, philosophical reflections on the meaning of evolutionary theory. So there's no necessary conflict there, although ideologues on both sides of the debate often attempt to create them. I think provided there's a sense of respect for the mysteriousness of existence - even the existence of very simple organisms - the spiritual and scientific attitudes can co-exist quite harmoniously.

I was told that a journalist once asked Craig Venter — Quixodian

something that materialist philosopher Daniel Dennett argues for in his infamous book Darwin's Dangerous Idea - conforms with the nihilism of the modern age. — Quixodian

I watched the following last night:


Forrest Valkai, near the end of this phone-in show, talks about Craig Venter's work.
Forrest is intensely enthusiastic about science and always seems to have an excess of energy.
I was surprised when he declared himself as fundamentally nihilist, but he recovered so well, when he talked about how much he enjoyed life and living, despite the lack of meaning or intent behind life in this universe. He then coined a new term and declared himself a 'smilehilist,' :smile: I like it.
It starts about 2h 26mins into the vid, if anyone wants to watch it. They also seem to briefly discuss a person they all admire greatly called Bob Ross! I wonder if that could be TPF member @Bob Ross?
That would be soooooo cool if it was. :grin:

Forrest briefly talks about Craig Venter's work at 2h 52mins, based on a 'superchat' question someone submitted.

Edit: This is the most famous Bob Ross, I know of:

I can assure you that they are not referring to me, although that would be cool (;

Aw! How disappointing! I take it you are not Bob Ross Jr either, the unknown son of the now deceased famous landscape painter, pictured in my previous post.

Honestly, I just didn't know, way back when, what to use as my handle; so I just went with Bob Ross (after the painter you mentioned before). Of course, there is no connection between him and I ):