You know it means nothing? Then why not remain silent?

You mean stop talking to you? Now it seems tempting

If you think that what you said does mean something significant and it is just my failure to find that meaning at play here, then you are welcome to explain further. Or not, it's really up to you.

You are really off your rocker. — Terrapin Station

I don't own a rocker, so it's not my rocker that I'm off, I'm off all the rockers.

This is like saying “t-shirts are not clothes though, they are t-shirts. You violate the law of identity if you say t-shirts are clothes” and in the context of this discussion you then use that statement to conclude that there are no clothes, or people cannot experience clothes but somehow still experience t-shirts.
Im afraid your a bit confused here. — DingoJones

That's right, I'm saying that we sense individual pieces of clothing, like particular t-shirts. We do not sense what is referred to here as "clothes", when you say "t-shirt are clothes". if you do not understand that then I'm sure that you are the one confused, not me.

It might be worth talking to someone who isn't as trollish, confused or insane as Metaphysician Undercover. What I said above about this was:

"How do we get to the point of saying that matter is an idea? — Terrapin Station

If you would have paid attention to what I said, instead of just saying "you're off your rocker", perhaps you might understand some of these things. Dismissing someone with such a statement, when you recognize that what they say is true, but you don't want to agree with it, because it conflicts with some of your beliefs, is pure nonsense.

In other words, don't ask the question if you're not going to accept the answer. That's just being a troll.

The idea is that the behavior of things would be random if nothing determined it to be invariant or regular; if there were no universal principles, in other words. Why would you expect things to behave invariantly across vast regions energetically separate from one another, or even locally, if nothing determined that? — Janus

Why would we expect it to be random? What makes the default the default?

What you have given here is just a bunch of words, a trite formula, that really explains nothing — Janus

You didn't actually quote anything there, so I'm not sure what post you're referring to.

Re "really explains nothing," explanations are merely sets of words (or mathematical symbols, etc.) that an individual interprets so that it quells some of their "mystery to me" feeling. This, of couse, means that it's a matter of psychological factors. The individual's beliefs, biases, intellectual capabilities, and so on, all have a significant bearing on whether any particular set of words scratches that "it's a mystery" itch for them. That makes whether something counts as an explanation interesting primarily for what it tells us about the person in question's psychology.

What's not going on is that the set of words is "really" explaining or not explaining whatever it's about. Whether an explanation is successful is always a subjective judgment.

So, what is nominalism as explained in physicalist terms? — Janus

There's not a different "physicalist brand of nominalism." The Wikipedia entry I referenced covers the basics.

But what are those universal regularities if they are anything beyond our conceptions of them? — Janus

I already answered that. They're properties of the particulars in question. There's no reason to expect the properties of the particulars in question to be random.

Random behavior is unregulated (that's what 'random' means); so if there were no laws to regulate the behavior of phenomena, then the behavior of phenomena would be random. Since the behavior of phenomena is not random but seems to be universally invariant we have reason to think that there is something that we would call a law which gives rise to that universal invariance.

I already answered that. They're properties of the particulars in question. There's no reason to expect the properties of the particulars in question to be random. — Terrapin Station

Each particular has its own regularities or invariances, but there is a universal web of regularity or invariance which seems to unify the individual regularities and invariances across all space and time.

Although the particular regularities may be thought to be properties of the particulars that instantiate them the universal web of invariance cannot be thought to be merely a property of particulars. And you still haven't addressed the problem of energetic interaction that arises due to the separation of things by vast distances.

Random behavior is unregulated (that's what 'random' means); so if there were no laws to regulate the behavior of phenomena, then the behavior of phenomena would be random. — Janus

"Random" means that if there were 5 possible properties, then over many iterations, 1 is going to occur 20% of the time, 2 is going to occur 20% of the time, etc., for no reason/just arbitrarily.

There's no reason to expect that that would be the case. Expecting that it would be the case is making an assumption about what the world is like by "default." But we have no way to know that.

If there are 5 possible properties, then maybe 1 and 2 are going to come up the vast majority of the time. There doesn't need to be anything to regulate this, it can just be the case as a brute fact. It can just be the way that things happen to be.

here is a universal web of regularity or invariance which seems to unify the individual regularities and invariances across all space and time. — Janus

What in the world is that even referring to?

"Random" means that if there were 5 possible properties, then over many iterations, 1 is going to occur 20% of the time, 2 is going to occur 20% of the time, etc., for no reason/just arbitrarily. — Terrapin Station

No, that limited notion of randomness always already presupposes the operation of natural laws. If things were truly random, no such statistical regularities would reliably occur.

Thank You!!

This is the best response I've received so far to the point I've been trying to make. Unfortunately, I have to go to class. I'll respond later. — Harry Hindu

Thank you for your kind response. I think this is a great issue, and I thought that we were at least in agreement on some insight that was worth clarifying. I look forward to your response.

No, that limited notion of randomness always already presupposes the operation of natural laws. If things were truly random, no such statistical regularities would reliably occur. — Janus

I can't think how it would be possible to avoid statistical regularlties. If there are multiple possibilites, either they're all going to occur more or less evenly or some are going to occur significantly more than others, and both of those will appear to be regularlities.

Don't be obtuse: it refers to the idea that natural invariance manifests across all space and time.

Don't be obtuse: it refers to the idea that natural invariance manifests across all space and time — Janus

Or just speak plainly. I'm still not even sure what you're referring to here. I'm not going to lie and say I know what you're referring to when I'm not sure.

I can't think how it would be possible to avoid statistical regularlties. If there are multiple possibilites, either they're all going to occur more or less evenly or some are going to occur significantly more than others, and both of those will appear to be regularlities. — Terrapin Station

Actually that's not true. Their always occurring more or less evenly is a regularity. There not always occurring more or less evenly would be a true randomness.

So you don't know what it means to say that natural invariance manifests across all space and time?

Actually that's not true. Their always occurring more or less evenly is a regularity. There not always occurring more or less evenly would be a true randomness. — Janus

Okay but if 1 and 2 (out of 5 possibilities) occur the vast majority of the time, then that would simply appear to be a "law" that either 1 or 2.

So you don't know what it means to say that natural invariance manifests across all space and time? — Janus

No, I'm not sure what that's supposed to refer to, because all I believe exists are particulars.

Okay but if 1 and 2 (out of 5 possibilities) occur the vast majority of the time, then that would simply appear to be a "law" that either 1 or 2. — Terrapin Station

But if nothing occurred "the vast majority of the time" that would be true randomness.

But if nothing occurred "the vast majority of the time" that wouold be true randomness. — Janus

Then we're going to tend toward all the possibilities occuring more or less evenly, which is what you said wasn't randomness.

Again, given a set of possibilities, there are only two choices:

(1) all the possibilities occur more or less an even number of times
(2) some of the possibilities occur a significant number of times more than others

No, I'm not sure what that's supposed to refer to, because all I believe exists are particulars. — Terrapin Station

You don't have to believe in something to know what it means, do you? Putting it differently do you believe the behavior of particulars (in the broadest sense of course!) is invariant across all space and time?

You don't have to believe in something to know what it means, do you? — Janus

It has to refer to something coherent.

Putting it differently do you believe the behavior of particulars (in the broadest sense of course!) is invariant across all space and time? — Janus

Invariant--never changing? the same?

No to either one of those. Otherwise how are you using that term?

Then we're going to tend toward all the possibilities occuring more or less evenly, which is what you said wasn't randomness.

Again, given a set of possibilities, there are only two choices:

(1) all the possibilities occur more or less an even number of times
(2) some of the possibilities occur a significant number of times more than others — Terrapin Station

No, I said that true randomness would be that there are no determinate possibilities at all. Flowers might spontaneously transform into lions; anything might become anything else, or simply disappear and so on.

So, the very fact that we are "given a set of possibilities" means that things are not truly random.

"No determinate possibilites" isn't coherent in my view.

And if you're saying something like "infinite possibilities," then you're reifying mathematical concepts.

"Regular" if you don't like the term "invariant". You know what that means, don't you? What if there were no regularities at all, even statistical regularities; that would be true randomness, wouldn't it?

I have no idea, because I'm not clear on either how you're using the term "invariant" or "random" at this point.

If the world were truly random; no conversation would be possible; so in that sense, yes, if there were no determinate possibilities the world would be incoherent. But we live in a coherent, intelligible world, which fact requires that there be universal regularities. If you can't understand that, then I don't know else what to say.

The problem is that at this point I'm not clear on how you're using the term "random," but you're just using it in a sentence anyway, and then you go ahead and tack on the phrase "no determinate possibilities," when I think that phrase is incoherent.