Do you believe in God and why

[VincentRJ]

12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The usual definition for random, and as most people understand it, is:

1. made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.

How is 'conscious decision' relevant to atoms randomly bumping into each other. Even the atoms and molecules in the chair you are sitting on, are constantly bumping into each other and gradually changing their composition. No conscious decisions can change that, unless you change the chair.

 

I doubt complexity has anything do not with a random event.

 

Wow! It has everything to do with a random event.

[Tippaporn]

16 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

  

33 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The usual definition for random, and as most people understand it, is:

 

1. made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.

 

I doubt complexity has anything to do with a random event.

 

Edit: that last line should make sense now.

 

How is 'conscious decision' relevant to atoms randomly bumping into each other. Even the atoms and molecules in the chair you are sitting on, are constantly bumping into each other and gradually changing their composition. No conscious decisions can change that, unless you change the chair.

 

Wow! It has everything to do with a random event.

If you do not grant consciousness to atoms then I can understand how their motion would be interpreted as purely random.  If all atoms do possess consciousness then the idea that their courses are purely random would no doubt have to be reconsidered.  I'm of the opinion that man has not reached the stage of understanding what consciousness is and would therefore not recognize it's existence if it did not meet his criteria of what can and what cannot be conscious.  I would say it's all conscious.  Everything.  The lot of it.  I wouldn't expect you to believe it and I certainly would expect you to resist understanding it if an explanation was provided you.  I'm not saying this as a sleight to you.  It's just the simple fact that people do not like to have their beliefs challenged.  They are very protective of them.

 

You might want to expound on your idea as to how complexity factors into randomness.  Going strictly by the definition of the word I don't see the role complexity would play.

 

[VincentRJ]

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You might want to expound on your idea as to how complexity factors into randomness.  Going strictly by the definition of the word I don't see the role complexity would play.

 

'Randomness' is a human construct or concept. It describes a situation we currently have no control over.

If you throw a ball onto a roulette wheel in a casino, you cannot predict the outcome. It's called 'gambling'.

However, if you had some very sophisticated scientific measuring devices, that could measure the initial momentum of the roulette wheel, the trajectory of the ball that was thrown onto the wheel, and numerous other factors such as the surface resistance of ball to wheel at every moment, you could predict the outcome a few seconds before it occurred.

 

[mauGR1]

12 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

'Randomness' is a human construct or concept. It describes a situation we currently have no control over.

If you throw a ball onto a roulette wheel in a casino, you cannot predict the outcome. It's called 'gambling'.

However, if you had some very sophisticated scientific measuring devices, that could measure the initial momentum of the roulette wheel, the trajectory of the ball that was thrown onto the wheel, and numerous other factors such as the surface resistance of ball to wheel at every moment, you could predict the outcome a few seconds before it occurred.

 

So, in fact you are admitting that randomness doesn't exist as an absolute, but what you are not able to understand or predict, you call it random.

[Tippaporn]

9 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

9 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

<snip>

You might want to expound on your idea as to how complexity factors into randomness.  Going strictly by the definition of the word I don't see the role complexity would play.

'Randomness' is a human construct or concept. It describes a situation we currently have no control over.

If you throw a ball onto a roulette wheel in a casino, you cannot predict the outcome. It's called 'gambling'.

However, if you had some very sophisticated scientific measuring devices, that could measure the initial momentum of the roulette wheel, the trajectory of the ball that was thrown onto the wheel, and numerous other factors such as the surface resistance of ball to wheel at every moment, you could predict the outcome a few seconds before it occurred.

I think the idea of how randomness works does not escape most posters here.

 

You still have not explained how complexity plays an integral part in randomness.  It's as if you were implying that the practical working of randomness is dependent on the component of complexity being present..  I had commented that, "I doubt complexity has anything to do with a random event."  Your response was:

 

10 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

<snip>

Wow! It has everything to do with a random event.

Your response seemed to indicate you had an excellent working knowledge.  To be honest, I'm clueless.  Perhaps you can explain it so that a layman could understand?

[Tippaporn]

I've been speaking from day one about the existence of infinite realities (and not all physical) and the fact that the source of objective reality is subjective reality.  The fact that objective reality cannot even exist without subjective reality.  I've posted a number of scientific based articles which speak directly to my claims and I find it interesting that as of yet there hasn't been a single, solitary response from any of the science disciples on this thread.  Makes me wonder whether the science buffs on this thread are truly as well versed in the theories they so passionately claim as absolute fact and are unable to tie it all together to suggest an actual working model of reality which accounts for all phenomenon.

 

Might one of you posters attempt to delve into the implications suggested by the below articles?

 

Physicist Says Parallel Universes Definitely Exist and We May Soon Explore Them. Are we living in a multiverse?

 

Objective Reality Doesn't Exist, Quantum Experiment Shows  Or this one:  A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality

[Tippaporn]

Here is the video stripped out of the first article I listed above.  What I'd like to highlight about the video is how Joe Rogan struggles to wrap his brain around the idea of multiverses.  What are the implications?  How would this theory displace other theories which have been so ingrained over a lifetime?  The point of highlighting it is to show the mental gymnastics everyone must go through when ultimately confronted with ideas that run counter to long held and established ideas which have thus far been rigorously taken for granted.  Whether one's disposition is science or religion matters not.  This is what happens when people realize that ideas that were thought to be conditions of reality turn out to be nothing more than simple beliefs.  Life's a b!tch!  LOL

 

 

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

You still have not explained how complexity plays an integral part in randomness.  It's as if you were implying that the practical working of randomness is dependent on the component of complexity being present..  I had commented that, "I doubt complexity has anything to do with a random event." 

I thought I had already explained it with my example of the roulette wheel in gambling. A more simple example is the flipping of a coin. Why can we not predict with a 100% accuracy whether the coin will fall 'heads' or 'tails'?

 

Answer: First because the initial spinning force which is applied to the coin varies in magnitude and is variable with regard to the area of the coin the force is applied to, such as 'close to the edge, resulting in a faster spin', or 'closer to the middle of the coin, resulting in a slower spin'. 

 

Second, in addition to this initial variability, there are innumerable subtle forces that influence the trajectory and spin of the coin as it swishes through the air. The air might appear to be static, but the reality is, all the air molecules are bouncing around and continuously colliding with each other and with the coin. The air will also have subtle currents of slightly hotter and slightly colder parts moving around, influencing the trajectory of the coin.

 

If you want to overcome this 'apparent' randomness, it's necessary to remove the complexity. How would you do that with the tossing of a coin, so that we can predict with certainty which side the coin will fall?
First, the coin would have to be tossed in a vacuum so it is uninfluenced by the complexities of the subtle turbulence in the air. But that would not be enough. The initial flipping of the coin, in the vacuum, would need to be done by a well-calibrated and very precise 'flipping machine', which would apply a very precise force to a precise area of the coin to ensure a precise trajectory in the vacuum. The final result of 'heads' or 'tails', after appropriate experimentation involving changes to the 'flipping' force initially applied, could then be accurately predicted.

 

Got it?  ????
 

[Peter Denis]

Yes, you just proved that there is no such thing as 'randomness' when talking about material events,

If you expand that concept step-by-step further you will come to the conclusion that 'co-incidence' does not exist.  When looking for reasons why things happen we tend to look for the material chain-of-events that led to it happening, and thus looking in the past to predict the outcome of an event.  But causality isn't so simple, you can also take into consideration the notion that something happened because it was meant to happen.  So not only the past pushing, but at the same time also the future pulling.  

[VincentRJ]

23 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

But causality isn't so simple, you can also take into consideration the notion that something happened because it was meant to happen.  So not only the past pushing, but at the same time also the future pulling.  

Of course causality is not 'always' simple. It's usually mind-bogglingly complex. Sometimes it's 'relatively' simple, which allows modern science and technology to produce the products we admire. But more often it's far too complex for human understanding and control, which results in imaginative hypotheses, some of which are based on our current scientific understanding and knowledge, such as the Big Bang origin of the universe, but still a hypothesis, and some which are pure 'science fiction', such as 'future pulling'.

[Peter Denis]

7 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Of course causality is not 'always' simple. It's usually mind-bogglingly complex. Sometimes it's 'relatively' simple, which allows modern science and technology to produce the products we admire. But more often it's far too complex for human understanding and control, which results in imaginative hypotheses, some of which are based on our current scientific understanding and knowledge, such as the Big Bang origin of the universe, but still a hypothesis, and some which are pure 'science fiction', such as 'future pulling'.

It's rather old 'science fiction'.  Aristotle already categorized the four causes that are simultaneously at work to determine the outcome of an event.  Science tends to focus only the causa efficiens and the causa materialis, as it is difficult to factor in the 'causa finalis'.  But without the causa finalis, the sense of the Why is lost, as the material/ energy causes are exponents of the the physical world, while the goal cause lies in a different realm.  

[mauGR1]

16 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

imaginative hypotheses, some of which are based on our current scientific understanding and knowledge, such as the Big Bang origin of the universe, but still a hypothesis, and some which are pure 'science fiction', such as 'future pulling'.

Actually is the opposite, the existence of the future is a proven reality, while the big bang theory is s.f.

By the events of the past, for the law of cause and effect, one can predict the future, or "future pulling".

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

I thought I had already explained it with my example of the roulette wheel in gambling. A more simple example is the flipping of a coin. Why can we not predict with a 100% accuracy whether the coin will fall 'heads' or 'tails'?

 

Answer: First because the initial spinning force which is applied to the coin varies in magnitude and is variable with regard to the area of the coin the force is applied to, such as 'close to the edge, resulting in a faster spin', or 'closer to the middle of the coin, resulting in a slower spin'. 

 

Second, in addition to this initial variability, there are innumerable subtle forces that influence the trajectory and spin of the coin as it swishes through the air. The air might appear to be static, but the reality is, all the air molecules are bouncing around and continuously colliding with each other and with the coin. The air will also have subtle currents of slightly hotter and slightly colder parts moving around, influencing the trajectory of the coin.

 

If you want to overcome this 'apparent' randomness, it's necessary to remove the complexity. How would you do that with the tossing of a coin, so that we can predict with certainty which side the coin will fall?
First, the coin would have to be tossed in a vacuum so it is uninfluenced by the complexities of the subtle turbulence in the air. But that would not be enough. The initial flipping of the coin, in the vacuum, would need to be done by a well-calibrated and very precise 'flipping machine', which would apply a very precise force to a precise area of the coin to ensure a precise trajectory in the vacuum. The final result of 'heads' or 'tails', after appropriate experimentation involving changes to the 'flipping' force initially applied, could then be accurately predicted.

 

Got it?  ????
 

After enough pestering I've finally gotten you to include the complexity factor in your explanation.  LOL  Perhaps you thought the complexity factor was so obviously implied in your examples that it didn't need to be mentioned.  Well, it obviously wasn't obvious.  So thanks for a fuller explanation.

 

So you're stating a theory that posits that randomness is nonexistent and only an appearance due to the inconsistencies of known or unknown influences (influences = complexities, I believe is safe to assume).  Control the influences and accurate prediction is all but guaranteed.

 

Well, I think we can both agree that we don't believe in the existence of randomness.  Your theory is certainly based in classical physics.  The only possible influences would be of a physical nature.  How might subjectivity be an influence?  That question might require quantum physics for an explanation.  Either remain speculation, or best guess based on rational thought and what is thus far "known."

 

As to predictions (now drifting to a side issue), I would say that any attempts to nail down accurate predictions 100% of the time must include the issue of probabilities.  I'll be clear, though, that when I say probabilities I am not referring to statistical probability but to probable realities.  Quantum mechanics may one day show that predictions can never be made with 100% accuracy, even in instances involving a simple coin toss.  But thankfully you don't need to wait for quantum physics to figure out the correct answer to that.

 

But again, thanks for further clarifying your position.

 

Edited March 5, 2020 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Peter Denis said:

Yes, you just proved that there is no such thing as 'randomness' when talking about material events,

If you expand that concept step-by-step further you will come to the conclusion that 'co-incidence' does not exist.  When looking for reasons why things happen we tend to look for the material chain-of-events that led to it happening, and thus looking in the past to predict the outcome of an event.  But causality isn't so simple, you can also take into consideration the notion that something happened because it was meant to happen.  So not only the past pushing, but at the same time also the future pulling.  

Nice and clear response.  I would make one minor edit and replace "was meant to happen" with "followed expectation."

[Tippaporn]

31 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

It's rather old 'science fiction'.  Aristotle already categorized the four causes that are simultaneously at work to determine the outcome of an event.  Science tends to focus only the causa efficiens and the causa materialis, as it is difficult to factor in the 'causa finalis'.  But without the causa finalis, the sense of the Why is lost, as the material/ energy causes are exponents of the the physical world, while the goal cause lies in a different realm.  

Causa finalis.  That pesky question, "Why."  Science wisely chose to leave "why" to the philosophers lest it make a mess of things in their orderly universe.  LOL

[VincentRJ]

38 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Actually is the opposite, the existence of the future is a proven reality,

Nonsense. If you die, there is no proven future for you. The complexity of our surroundings ensures there is never 100% certainty about anything.

 

Perhaps I should amend my example of the coin-flipping experiment where I stated that it might be possible to predict with 100% accuracy which side the coin will fall. There's always the remote possibility that some unknown or unpredictable event might affect the result, such as a piece of space debris falling on the 'flipping machine', or a Tornado descending upon the laboratory, or an earth quake tremor, and so on.

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, VincentRJ said:

Nonsense. If you die, there is no proven future for you. The complexity of our surroundings ensures there is never 100% certainty about anything.

 

No, i was not referring to your future or my future, i was referring to "the future".

The future is the other side of the past, it existed before you, and it will exist after you.

Perhaps past, present and future are just humans' construction, perhaps not, but it's difficult to prove.

[Peter Denis]

56 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Nice and clear response.  I would make one minor edit and replace "was meant to happen" with "followed expectation."

Thanks for taking an interest in my posting.

But for sure I did not mean 'followed expectation', I wrote ' the notion that something happened because it was meant to happen'.  Like encountering those people and circumstances you need that enable further growth (ask and you shall be given).  Yes, the 'causa finalis' at work.

[VincentRJ]

36 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Perhaps past, present and future are just humans' construction, perhaps not, but it's difficult to prove.

Exactly. If it's far too difficult to prove, then why believe it? Take advice from the Buddha. Why waste time with 'imponderables'? There are other more important issues.

[mauGR1]

10 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Exactly. If it's far too difficult to prove, then why believe it? Take advice from the Buddha. Why waste time with 'imponderables'? There are other more important issues.

I agree with what Buddha said, but that's a general advice. You are still free to choose what is important, thanks God.

Yet "wasting time", "imponderables" and "important issues" are subjective.

I think that spending time, not necessarily believing, but investigating what you call imponderables is not wasting time.

I see lots of people working like devils to accumulate riches, in a way they are wasting time, yet i don't feel the urge to tell them. To each their own.

[ThaiBunny]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I agree with what Buddha said, but that's a general advice. You are still free to choose what is important, thanks God.

Yet "wasting time", "imponderables" and "important issues" are subjective.

I think that spending time, not necessarily believing, but investigating what you call imponderables is not wasting time.

I see lots of people working like devils to accumulate riches, in a way they are wasting time, yet i don't feel the urge to tell them. To each their own.

The Buddha's point, which you have missed entirely, is that both seeking riches and spending time on imponderables are equally pointless for those who seek enlightenment ie. an end to suffering (in the Buddhist sense). Your position appears to be that since there can never be an end to suffering then it's "every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost"

[VincentRJ]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Yet "wasting time", "imponderables" and "important issues" are subjective.

I think that spending time, not necessarily believing, but investigating what you call imponderables is not wasting time.

 

True. If you are a scientist in a specialized subject, doing academic or theoretical research, then that's your job. Contemplating what some people might consider to be 'imponderable' can produce useful results. That's progress.

 

However, the investigation must begin with at least an appearance of sound evidence, not an airy-fairy anecdote. ????

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

The Buddha's point, which you have missed entirely, is that both seeking riches and spending time on imponderables are equally pointless for those who seek enlightenment ie. an end to suffering (in the Buddhist sense)

If you say so.

It's a joy to have someone here who has such a perfect understanding of Buddha's point.

I'll admit that for me it's still "work in progress".

[ThaiBunny]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

If you say so.

Every basic book on Buddhism makes the same point

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

However, the investigation must begin with at least an appearance of sound evidence, not an airy-fairy anecdote. 

What you fail to grasp is that there are different opinions of what you call "sound evidence", and your definition of it is not necessarily the only real one.

A starting point to broaden your horizons, could be admitting that the physical senses can perceive only a tiny part of what we call reality, but i am not in a hurry to convince you of that ????

[Peter Denis]

20 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I agree with what Buddha said, but that's a general advice. You are still free to choose what is important, thanks God.

Yet "wasting time", "imponderables" and "important issues" are subjective.

I think that spending time, not necessarily believing, but investigating what you call imponderables is not wasting time.

I see lots of people working like devils to accumulate riches, in a way they are wasting time, yet i don't feel the urge to tell them. To each their own.

Zen buddhism uses meditation techniques that most would consider 'pure waste of time', like pondering the question 'What is the sound of one hand clapping?'

 

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

Every basic book on Buddhism makes the same point

Ok, i guess the next step will be to put in practice those teachings.

I used to be interested too, but then i heard the Dalai Lama saying that one should preferably stick to his religion of birth.

I find that Christian esoteric teachings have a lot in common with Buddhism btw.

[ThaiBunny]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Ok, i guess the next step will be to put in practice those teachings.

I used to be interested too, but then i heard the Dalai Lama saying that one should preferably stick to his religion of birth.

I find that Christian esoteric teachings have a lot in common with Buddhism btw.

If you think, as I do, that the central tenet of Christianity is "die to self" and "live for others" then there are many similarities

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

If you think, as I do, that the central tenet of Christianity is "die to self" and "live for others" then there are many similarities

Uhm, personally, if i had to define a "central tenet", or a "basic truth", i would call it "the law of reciprocity", or "karma" or "reap what you sow".

Nirvana is just a more sophisticated description of Heaven.

[ThaiBunny]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

Uhm, personally, if i had to define a "central tenet", or a "basic truth", i would call it "the law of reciprocity", or "karma" or "reap what you sow".

Nirvana is just a more sophisticated description of Heaven.

I'm hoping they've got my 72 virgin youths lined up for me