-->
@drafterman
Ok,
(IFF) some events are "acausal" (THEN) what are the implications (in your view)?
Only truth and logic exists
Posts
Total:
115
-->
@3RU7AL
The implication is, then, that OPs assumptions and premises are false.
-->
@drafterman
The implication is, then, that OPs assumptions and premises are false.
Please be slightly more specific.
-->
@3RU7AL
Sigh
I have been and all this really is is a request to repeat myself. OP has stated:
By logical, I mean that a cause A has a clear and only effect B so that the effect is completely dependant on the cause. A non-logical cause and effect process can not exist as the definition of non-logic would be that an effect B happen independently of a cause A
Logical: The idea that every cause A has an effect BThat no cause stands without effect and vice versa.The only illogical event would be one that did not have a cause.
So the thing all people from all religions and world views should agree on is the idea that everything is logical, nothing happens without a cause.
In the future, if you want to interject into a conversation, take it upon yourself to understand what has already been said and stated rather than jumping in the middle and asking for a recap.
-->
@drafterman
By logical, I mean that a cause A has a clear and only effect B so that the effect is completely dependant on the cause. A non-logical cause and effect process can not exist as the definition of non-logic would be that an effect B happen independently of a cause A
A purely hypothetical "acausal" event is not necessarily "impossible".
A purely hypothetical "acausal" event would not necessarily "break logic".
In-determinism is functionally indistinguishable from determinism.
-->
@drafterman
The implication is, then, that OPs assumptions and premises are false.
Are you suggesting that determinism is provably false?
-->
@drafterman
The implication is, then, that OPs assumptions and premises are false.
Why?
Why is there no flying pink elephants in space? Because there is no cause.
In other words, the event "flying pink elephants" is only held back because of causality.
Tell me, do you believe that an event can happen out of nowhere, without any cause?
Sorry, I mean no disrespect, but to me, that sounds ridiculous.
And we have never found such a claim to be true, while we constantly prove that what we thought were random or uncaused, in reality, has a logical explanation.
Tell me why you think that only certain "acusual" event can possibly happen, like quantum mechanics but not pink flying elephants
-->
@Benjamin
Why?Why is there no flying pink elephants in space? Because there is no cause.In other words, the event "flying pink elephants" is only held back because of causality.Tell me, do you believe that an event can happen out of nowhere, without any cause?
Yes.
Sorry, I mean no disrespect, but to me, that sounds ridiculous.And we have never found such a claim to be true, while we constantly prove that what we thought were random or uncaused, in reality, has a logical explanation.Tell me why you think that only certain "acusual" event can possibly happen, like quantum mechanics but not pink flying elephants
They can happen, with extremely low probability. It is not forbidden by the laws of physics.
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you suggesting that determinism is provably false?
No.
A purely hypothetical "acausal" event would not necessarily "break logic".
The OP asserts that it does.
-->
@drafterman
Sorry, I am new to debating, what does OP mean?
-->
@drafterman
A purely hypothetical "acausal" event would not necessarily "break logic".The OP asserts that it does.
I agree with you on this particular point.
-->
@Benjamin
Original Post.
-->
@drafterman
They can happen, with extremely low probability. It is not forbidden by the laws of physics.
I do not understand why you insert the term "probability" in order to make your claim impervious to critique.
Probability requires either:
- A dataset with previous events with which one can predict future events
- A system of logic and or math that could cause the event under certain probabilistic circumstances.
If there is no cause for an event, there can be no probabilistic model. Or do you mean that "probability" in this case refers to God rolling dice, waiting to get all one million dice to show the number six, and then he will release the purple flying elephants?
-->
@3RU7AL
Yeah, I did not understand the importance of that, as this is my first forum debate.
-->
@Benjamin
Are you familiar with the concept of "quantum foam"?
-->
@Benjamin
Yeah, I did not understand the importance of that, as this is my first forum debate.
It only means what you think it means.
There is no rule saying "you can never modify your original statement".
This is more of a "conversation" than a "debate".
-->
@Benjamin
I do not understand why you insert the term "probability" in order to make your claim impervious to critique.Probability requires either:
- A dataset with previous events with which one can predict future events
- A system of logic and or math that could cause the event under certain probabilistic circumstances.
This is your own home-brewed definition of probability and perhaps my running refutation is: "You've just made all this up and have not demonstrated it to be true."
You are making up/altering definitions of established concepts on the fly.
For example, radioactive decay is probabilistic but does not come with any system of logic or math that proposes a cause for any single radioactive event.
If there is no cause for an event, there can be no probabilistic model. Or do you mean that "probability" in this case refers to God rolling dice, waiting to get all one million dice to show the number six, and then he will release the purple flying elephants?
By "probability" I mean that it has a chance of happening between 0 and 100 (exclusive).
-->
@drafterman
For example, radioactive decay is probabilistic but does not come with any system of logic or math that proposes a cause for any single radioactive event.
Radioactive decay is predictable.
-->
@drafterman
By "probability" I mean that it has a chance of happening between 0 and 100 (exclusive).
Does this include every conceivable event?
-->
@3RU7AL
Radioactive decay is predictable.
But there is no known "cause" for any specific radioactive event. You cannot predict when a single atom of a radioactive substance will decay.
Does this include every conceivable event?
No.
-->
@drafterman
Probability: the extent to which an event is likely to occur, measured by the ratio of the favourable cases to the whole number of cases possible.
Clearly, this is the definition of probability.
My option B was a definition under which we assume we already know the inner workings of the system in which the probable event supposedly could happen
-->
@drafterman
You cannot predict what number your dice will land on, but still, we understand that the laws of physics cause the randomness, not acausuality
-->
@drafterman
Why are you so anry
No reason to put up such a face
XD XD XD
-->
@Benjamin
You cannot predict what number your dice will land on, but still, we understand that the laws of physics cause the randomness, not acausuality
It is for that reasons that I did not reference rolling dice. Instead, I have referenced events which physics treats as acausal, to which you still not have responded.
Obviously, radioactive decay is super intricate and complicated, but also dangerous.
Are you claiming that the randomness or "causality" is created by the complexity of the physical processor are you referring to "true" randomness, something that would not be a good scientific theory or even a good guess, given that science has always found the casual process with everything they do have an answer for.
EVERY causality in nature lacks a scientific theory with sufficient evidence. Thus we can see causality as a placeholder for the actual theory until it arrives.
my bad, I meant acausality
-->
@Athias
This is circular reasoning. You haven't substantiated this premise. The only evidence or proof of this premise is the premise itself.
Exactly
One must have blind faith in something in order to have a world view.
And without a world view, one cannot reason for anything.
The world view I presented:
"Truth and logic exists, untrue and illogical things cannot exist"
Is circular reasoning. But also logically sound, even if your starting point is another world view like theism or atheism.
I do not propose a new idea as much as I presented a way in which most world views can debate based on the same "blind faith", my circularly-reasoned claim.
If untrue or illogical thing existed and had any relevance, how could we ever be certain that truth or logic existed?
-->
@Benjamin
One must have blind faith
OR, you could just call it an AXIOM.
-->
@drafterman
Radioactive decay is predictable.But there is no known "cause" for any specific radioactive event. You cannot predict when a single atom of a radioactive substance will decay.Does this include every conceivable event?No.
Is there a "known" "cause" for any specific bird landing on any specific branch at any specific time? You cannot predict when a single bird will land on a specific branch.
-->
@3RU7AL
That's a result of the complexity of the bird's brain and our inability to model it. The "cause" is the processing of external stimuli by the bird's brain, resulting in a decision to land on said branch.
There is nothing analogous to this for radioactive decay. There isn't some underlying complex process that we can't model because there are too many variables. It just "happens."