Determinism is literally a religion entirely based upon faith, — Rich

I have some faith in it, but not total faith. Because the very rationalism which leads me to espouse determinism, also recognizes that there is no proof of it. It's an emotional preference, and I recognise it as such, so I win/win. I can have my rationality and eat it. No churchgoer can say that.

Basically "everything is fractal" :)

My new metaphysics:
Of course everything is deterministic. But we can never prove it because existence is an expression of the Great Self Creating Fractal Imperative.

Adult Material (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform): — schopenhauer1

catenaries ... pwhooooaar?

(very predictable, I know)

Atoms and their chemical properties are the medium through which a discrete digital embryological design is implemented. I don't think that smaller means deeper however. The properties of atoms are simply being harnessed in the round ... there will be a "random" fuzziness to the outcome because atoms have peculiarities of behavior that lie outside the scope of control of DNA etc. Such fuzziness is not part of the "design" but neither could it be said to add anything specific other than noise.

Semiotics though, ‘objectifies’ the continuous world by assigning discreet properties (such as cell wall) to much more complex phenomenon. — MikeL

If you look at the "design" of living things through embryology, the blueprints are rather digital. There are genes that effectively represent numbers such as two and five and concepts such as symmetry, and recursion. There are strongly defined "types" as well. The "continuous world" is a doubtful concept, I suggest.

Should our lives be guided by truth or should our lives guide the truth? — TheMadFool

The latter!

What does it gain? — Bitter Crank

Perhaps nothing but cultural/patriotic pride... the same thing that the bigger nation state has to lose presumably. Nation states like to big themselves up - that's the problem with the game they play.

Why does diversity need to be managed by any government, let alone a world government? — Bitter Crank

I should explain that in this context I meant cultural/geographic/economic diversity. Ethnic diversity would presumably gradually change as people slowly migrate under controlled conditions. Regions that belong to a world government that are not economically powerful could expect generous subsidization of their way in life in return for allowing a certain amount of outsiders to move in. So, for example, the Mongolian nomads might find their numbers swelled by a few Californian droput hippies.... who knows what would happen eventually. Perhaps race and ethnicity would eventually disappear, and that would be a Good Thing, I think, as long as CGE-diversity is maintained and/or evolves.

Thoughts? — Bitter Crank

Nation states should be broken up, with smaller regions then belonging to some overarching international community. The US and the EU have elements of this, but of course the US is a defensively stanced nation-state, whereas the EU is a sort of internationalist project that aspires to welcome more into its fold. Scotland nearly voted for independence from the UK on the basis that it could be part of the EU, and no doubt some Catalonians feel the same.

I find my position to be very ironic, because I do support the break up of nation states into smaller regions, particularly where there is strong cultural and ethnical cohesiveness. However, I also think that ethnicity, tribalism, "us" v "them" ... whatever you want to call it - is a huge drag on human happiness, and the sooner it disappears the better. But I just think that smaller states confederated is ultimately more progressive than larger ultra competitive nation states, and has a better chance of leading to World Government.

Ultimately the world's regions should provide overall cultural, geographic and economic diversity by each being different, but that ethnicity should be no barrier to belonging to them. We should be able to choose as a World Govt citizen, to live in a region that suits our lifestyle and aspirations. Regions should be managed for diversity by a World government.

But first we must grant regions autonomy - even on the reactionary basis of ethnicity - otherwise regions will never properly happen.

I applaud his active and multi faceted liberalism. The mags I never got though , and his lifestyle even less, because while I think porn has a well defined and acceptable role to play it is just for sexual gratification. I thought his lifestyle was a bit silly really - almost as if he was guilty about sex per se so had to weave in a ridiculous narrative about his retinue.

However, there are truths that make us unhappy. The truth about our ugliness, our poverty, our meaningless existence, etc. are pain-inducing. — TheMadFool

I like Carl Rogers' take on this .. he says "all facts are friendly" , which I believe, was his way of saying that one's life is in one's own hands. And "truths" are really just facts that can only exist in a very narrow context whereas one's life is potentially unbounded, and not hemmed in by simple and contrived black and white questions.

A lot of philosophers want to dwell exclusively in the land of the prefrontal cortex and dismiss emotions.Big mistake. — Bitter Crank

I have a little saying.. "mood is everything."

Since the universe cannot by definition be compared to anything outside of it, — sime

That depends what you mean by "universe"....

Yet only randomness can impart "flavor" somehow ... which is why the many worlds interpretation of quantum events is so attractive. Things can appear truly random in one's own universe but only because we don't have access to the bigger picture. Every deterministic flavor of philosopher could be happy with that!

If I were to summarize my whole entire worldview in one sentence, then it would be: — TranscendedRealms

Do you mean paragraph?

Cool! :)

insulting the moderators is not the best tactic. — Sapientia

Maybe he has "fish to fry". They would go well with those .. ahem ... chips on his shoulder!

*only joking* :)

Science can be used to achieve goals -incl social and economic ones. The problem is in getting politicians to state their goals.

Thus, I conclude authenticity is a crock of BS — schopenhauer1

A fully "authentic" life may be near impossible for at least two reasons
1) Knowing what makes one "authentic" is difficult.
2) Implementing aspects of your authentic desires might be difficult.

He understood life's constraints- survival, boredom, discomfort. — schopenhauer1

We know, in principle, how to overcome these constraints. There's never been a better time in many ways, than the present given the levels of technology we have developed. Of course, the nature of our society withholds freedom as much as possible, and in any case people are often reluctant to embrace freedom. But as a concept, authenticity should not be so casually dismissed.... self actualization is for all, I believe.

Seems to me you know something about the Copenhagen interpretation and so refuse to consider anything beyond it. — Lee J Brownlie

I know only a little about it and its rival - "many worlds". But actually I prefer the latter better because although it allows for true randomness in one's own universe it is ultimately deterministic across the multiverse, and determinism seems the way to go. I'm not quite sure what you are enquiring about, but certainly "many worlds" is a very big rabbit hole... :)

I accept that the actual post was too short, yes.

Why is it such a big deal for you? — Sapientia

It's not that big a deal but I tend to think that a catchy title (as long as it is relevant and not misleading) is likely to pull in more interest.

I'm not sure that God could play dice. Because for me an essential feature of playing dice is not knowing what the outcome will be. Perhaps that's what Einstein meant. — andrewk

I think Einstein was using "God" as a stand in for the laws of physics, and of course he was wanting a neat aphorism. Don't we all!

God could play "truly random" dice and still know the outcome in advance, but we couldn't work it out... seeing as he's a god and all that. But that's God for you. Doesn't get you anywhere really.

It was only part of the OP. I think it was an apt and meaningful phrase to use though I accept the language was colloquial.

Note to posters: my opening post was also "modded" ... and some of my intention has been lost. I am not actually asking for help with understanding randomness; I am declaring true randomness to be impossible. Number sequences, such as the digits of root 2, are repatable by recipe, so can't count as truly random.

In fact "only God could play dice" was the neat enough title of this thread ... don't see why it had to be dragged to Drabsville ...

I can be happy with an explanation that it is 'just random' by understanding the mechanism of the random number generator from which it arises (or realising that there is one). — MikeL

In other words you are not happy to accept "just random ". And if you are like me to do so would feel wrong because effects need causes. Einstein could have said "only God could play dice" rather "God doesn't play dice" because it would require a miracle to have an effect without a cause.

fair coin flips — fdrake

Such a concept is theoretical though and my point is that there is no randomness in physical processes if you delve deep enough.

Who here can be satisfied with an "explanation" of.. "Oh it's just random" ..?

I'm not sure that God could play dice. — andrewk

So She's "defeatable" by a concept called "randomnesss" ??

Prediction is not incompatible with determinism.

...until you reach quantum level...

True randomness is surely a miracle!

Of course God exists in various "senses". So does randomness. But not really!

but something very compelling had to have happened to result in quite a few people scattered around the Aegean Sea, Asia Minor, the area around Jerusalem, and Rome thinking Jesus was the a real and important person. — Bitter Crank

Not necessarily. Think about modern day conspiracy therorists; the rise of wacky and not so wacky religions...

I think your question about "observers" is only relevant to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, where it is assumed that the wave function of a particle/object is resolved at the moment of "observation". But anyone or anything can be an "observer" in the sense that they/it simply force a resolve - could be a photon hitting an air atom, for example. You seem to want to impute some specialness to a conscious observer?

whose worlds, or 'realities', are they? — Lee J Brownlie

Nobody's! You get cloned whenever the universe is cloned due to a multiple-valued quantum outcome from anywhere in your universe. And whenever you get cloned your clone is completely distinct from you - and this is true of "classic" cloning, not just quantum cloning ... for example if a cloning machine could create a replica of you down to each particle and its state, then you and the clone would be two completely separate individuals, (albeit inhabiting the same universe so you could converse with your clone (who would claim YOU are the clone!!)). "Hilbert space" is what the quantum multiverse is all about, apparently

We think more clearly when we are not possessed by a god. enthusiasm, (early 17th cent.: from Greek enthousiastikos, from enthous ‘possessed by a god') — Bitter Crank

I'm not so sure. Enthusiam is a productive driver of thought. I feel that it is the quest for elegance that adversely affects thinking sometimes.

Bergson. Bergson. All I hear is Bergson.

:) because maybe there is just one ethical standpoint that IS "best" . (and maybe TR's is in the right direction but trying to be too "pure".....)