What is the most absurd thing you can think of?

[heusdens]

Does the absurd exist?

All things known to exist, exist as natural phenomena, and exist in causal connection with everything else. Outside of that, any postulated existence can be attributed as absurd, and can not be claimed to exist.

Let us explore this some further. What can we in fact know, and how can we know things? Firstly, the things we know in first instance are the things we can perceive through our own, or artificial senses.
This thus means that there must be a causal connection between the thing we observe, and the observer, else the observation can not take place. But there are things, we can not directly observe. Are they therefore inexistent? No, not necessarily. We can know about things also through indirect observation. We can for example postulate the existence of astronomic objects which are not directly detected, due to the influence this objects has on other, observable objects. Depending on the trustworthiness of the indirect observation and the causal connection assumed in that case, requiring the existence of that object, it can be said that that postulated objects exists.

The world of things that can be known to exist, therefore are limited to the fact that either they can be observed directly, or indirectly. This will limit concrete knowledge.

Apart from the knowable world, in theoretical debates, a lot of things outside of that domain can be postulated to exist.
One class of things that can be distinhuished of things that could in principle exist, is the class of speculated objects/things. These are objects or things that are not known (either through direct observation or indirect observation) at the time, but might exists, and are in theory knowable to exist (through either direct or indirect observation).

A specific class of objects or things, is defined in such a way that even in theory, this thing or object can not become part of the world of knowable things.

We shall name this class of objects and things: the absurd.

Objects and things that belong to the absurd can for instance be the defined actors outside of matter, space and time, which by definition are things that can not even in theory have causal connection with anything else that is known to exist, which makes their existence not even speculative, but absurd, since it is by definition unknowable.

The objects and things that belong to the absurd are therefore declared as inexisting.

Formal reasoning:

• 
  [1] Absurd things don't exist
  [2] God is absurd
  [3] Therefore: God does not exist
  

Note however that even though the absurd misses real existence, this does not withdraw any mind for nevertheless postulating their existence, writing about it, etc. Even though (or perhaps: precisely because!) the absurd misses real existence, they are a great source for storytellers, comic writers, and movie makers. In this way, it can be said that the absurd has a secondary form of existence: that of the mind. So, don't be surprised that even when Gods belonging to the absurd don't exist, still a lot of stories and tales are told over and over again.

 

[Laser Eyes]

Oh pleeeeease. If you are going to try and use logical reasoning to prove the non-existence of God you are going to have to do a lot better than that. You say that we know what we can perceive. Ok we see a world, we see people, what caused them? Answer: God.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
Oh pleeeeease. If you are going to try and use logical reasoning to prove the non-existence of God you are going to have to do a lot better than that. You say that we know what we can perceive. Ok we see a world, we see people, what caused them? Answer: God.

What caused God? Answer: absurdity.

Heusdens just can't get past the "Change is the only constant" thing. Some people just demand a coherent answer for everything, whether one exists or not! [?]

 

[pace]

Sure you got absurdity. 2+2=5 is pure absurdity. The formula still exist though, it's right there.

 

[Royce]

I am real. I exist.

I have knowledge of and perceive of the absurd whether it be God or dreams or imagination or pure fantacy.

These absurd perceptions have an effect and affect on me. I mentally and physically respond.

I am effected by the absurd. this effect can be measured, perceived, directly or indirectly; therefore, the aburd exists and is real.

I don't buy this for a minute but it is consistent with your logic.

If your logic is faultless and your conclusions are aburd, impossible, examine your premise.

 

[radagast]

Judging from this thread, yes.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
Oh pleeeeease. If you are going to try and use logical reasoning to prove the non-existence of God you are going to have to do a lot better than that. You say that we know what we can perceive. Ok we see a world, we see people, what caused them? Answer: God.

Ok. So let us dig into this "logic" of you.

There are two statements in your argument.

p = God exists

q = A world in which we live and which we observe, exists

Your formal argument is then:

p -> q ( p implies q )

We know that q is true. But does that necessarily mean that p is true?

In fact, the conclusion you make only makes sense, if also the negative would be true:

~p -> ~q ( not p implies not q )

But... the statement ~q ( the non existence of the world ) can not ever be true (that is: q can not be false, ever!) Besides the fact that a "nothing" can by definition not exist, if we are not there, there is no one to verify the "truth" of that statement.

So, the fact shows up that q can not possible be false.
What then about p? Well we can insert whatever we want for p, as long as it is not known to be false.

So, I could for example state: A Big Onion created the universe.
Since we don't know what exactly caused the observable universe to be what it is now, and can not trace down about what was before a certain point in time, we can not state to know that this Big Onion did not exist then, and did not cause the universe.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Royce
I am real. I exist.

I have knowledge of and perceive of the absurd whether it be God or dreams or imagination or pure fantacy.

These absurd perceptions have an effect and affect on me. I mentally and physically respond.

I am effected by the absurd. this effect can be measured, perceived, directly or indirectly; therefore, the aburd exists and is real.

I don't buy this for a minute but it is consistent with your logic.

If your logic is faultless and your conclusions are aburd, impossible, examine your premise.

I see no contradiction with my claims in my first post.

You just have to make the distinction between existence in the mind, and outside of it.

Do in nature ducks exist that can talk? No, they don't.
Does Donald Duck exists as a comic figure? Yes, certainly does.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by heusdens
Ok. So let us dig into this "logic" of you.

There are two statements in your argument.

p = God exists

q = A world in which we live and which we observe, exists

Your formal argument is then:

p -> q ( p implies q )

We know that q is true. But does that necessarily mean that p is true?

In fact, the conclusion you make only makes sense, if also the negative would be true:

~p -> ~q ( not p implies not q )

But... the statement ~q ( the non existence of the world ) can not ever be true (that is: q can not be false, ever!) Besides the fact that a "nothing" can by definition not exist, if we are not there, there is no one to verify the "truth" of that statement.

So, the fact shows up that q can not possible be false.
What then about p? Well we can insert whatever we want for p, as long as it is not known to be false.

So, I could for example state: A Big Onion created the universe.
Since we don't know what exactly caused the observable universe to be what it is now, and can not trace down about what was before a certain point in time, we can not state to know that this Big Onion did not exist then, and did not cause the universe.

However the statement ~q is logically valid and so to is the
statement ~p -> ~q and follows if no God; no World.

As you show ~q is obviously false there ~p is obviouly false.
You have by your logic just logically proved that God exists and the statement that God does not exist is absurd as proved by the fact that the world does indeed exist as we on it do

Congratulations!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by wuliheron
What caused God? Answer: absurdity.

Why does God need a cause?

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by heusdens
All things known to exist, exist as natural phenomena, and exist in causal connection with everything else. Outside of that, any postulated existence can be attributed as absurd, and can not be claimed to exist.

Good points, if not taken as absolute.

Originally posted by heusdens
Do in nature ducks exist that can talk? No, they don't.
Does Donald Duck exists as a comic figure? Yes, certainly does.

good example. First conclusion depends on finding single contrary example. Can you claim that within 30B lightyears radius there definitely exists not a single duck that can talk? (next you can say definition of duck constrains its brain capacity so that talking duck isn't duck).
Second example shows how absurd becomes natural

When unknown becomes known, absurd is observed to exist, and absurd becomes logical

So, the only answer to question "Does the absurd exist?" is "it is not known until observed."

But that is not really deep enough. Anything we could classify falls into class that CAN be talked about. Given that our language and imagination is constrained by all that we know, there is a good chance for possibility that there might exist something we can't comprehend, describe, define, talk or even think about, perhaps not even notice. It is tempting to say it does not exist. But if it does, it can't care less about what we say or can comprehend.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wimms
Good points, if not taken as absolute.

good example. First conclusion depends on finding single contrary example. Can you claim that within 30B lightyears radius there definitely exists not a single duck that can talk? (next you can say definition of duck constrains its brain capacity so that talking duck isn't duck).
Second example shows how absurd becomes natural

When unknown becomes known, absurd is observed to exist, and absurd becomes logical

So, the only answer to question "Does the absurd exist?" is "it is not known until observed."

You are wrong. First of, the example of a natural duck that can talk, if you extend nature to all of material existence, and find a way of talking about ducks in general as a kind of animal that lays eggs, lives in/on the water, is a bird that can fly, etc, I would agree with you that in theory such an organism could exist, and could talk.
We merely would have to assume that like the primates developed into human beings, on a hypothetical other planet it were ducks that developed into consciouss beings that developed speech.

So, the existence of a talking duck ain't absurd, but speculative.
It could in theory exist.

But that is not really deep enough. Anything we could classify falls into class that CAN be talked about. Given that our language and imagination is constrained by all that we know, there is a good chance for possibility that there might exist something we can't comprehend, describe, define, talk or even think about, perhaps not even notice. It is tempting to say it does not exist. But if it does, it can't care less about what we say or can comprehend.

In theory, anything could exist, but to exist would at least include that it could interact with known material forms.

Suppose we would postulate the possibility of a new form of matter, in the form of h-particles. h-particles (h from hypothetical) were defined as residing in the same spacetime as normal matter, but with no interaction with normal matter whatsoever.

This would mean: even in theory the existence of h-particles would be indectable.

Now, does this h-particles exists, yes or no?
Is it speculative or is it absurd?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Royce
However the statement ~q is logically valid and so to is the
statement ~p -> ~q and follows if no God; no World.

As you show ~q is obviously false there ~p is obviouly false.
You have by your logic just logically proved that God exists and the statement that God does not exist is absurd as proved by the fact that the world does indeed exist as we on it do

Congratulations!

Anything of which we could not know that it was false, could be put as p.

So, it would also proof then that a Big Onion created the world, a Big Pink Elephant, and all other kind of things which have not been proved NOT to exist, could form same wise the 'cause' of the universe. Now which is it? God, the Big Onion, the Big Pink Elephant?

The fact that q can not possible be false, means only one thing: that it did not depend on God for it to exist!

So the fact that the world does indeed exists, and can not possibly not exist is a fact which is not in any way dependend on anything else. No Big Onion, Big Pink Elephant or God to account for it.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Why does God need a cause?

Why does causality need God?

 

[Gale]

The Pink Elephant, The Big Onion, and God all exist. they are not physical, but mental, and who is to say that mental existince doesn't count. All three, elephant onion and god are now effecting the physical world in that as the evidence to prove or disprove anyone's theory, they have affected the thought of indiviuals reading this thread, and consequently, mantain a casual connection with that person's mind and thought. If the thoughts became widespread, then as in an other thread, our thoughts might dictate what we see, and perhaps we would see giant onions or pink elephants. All that we have today exists only because it was a thought before.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by heusdens
So, the existence of a talking duck ain't absurd, but speculative.
It could in theory exist.

In theory, anything could exist, but to exist would at least include that it could interact with known material forms.

Thats because 'in theory' defines 'exist' by requirement to interact with 'known to theory' forms. It accepts phenomena as existing only if it has been included into theory. How about unknown forms?

Suppose we would postulate the possibility of a new form of matter, in the form of h-particles. h-particles (h from hypothetical) were defined as residing in the same spacetime as normal matter, but with no interaction with normal matter whatsoever.

This would mean: even in theory the existence of h-particles would be indectable.

Now, does this h-particles exists, yes or no?
Is it speculative or is it absurd?

You know how hard it is to detect a neutrino? Suppose h-particle together with h-like g-particle can form n-particle that can interact with matter. Does h-particle exist now? Suppose h-particle interacts with Earth matter once in a million years. Would we notice? Would we claim it doesn't exist? Suppose it interacts with neutrino in some weird conditions not found on earth. What do we have to say about such particle? Based on our theories, it does not exist. Is that a final conclusion? Such particle isn't needed for our theory, it doesn't exist within our theory, but this doesn't mean it is impossible in reality.

Extrapolate, and assume that there might exist a lot more than what we possibly can become aware of on earth. I'm not first one to say that reality is a lot more bizarre than we could ever possibly imagine. Reality isn't limited by our theories. Our theories are limited by our imagination and what we can interact with.

Take particles that do not interact in a causal connection, but still do interact. What can we say about them? wow, and we apply probability waves, that allow us to find same particle on either side of universe.. Isnt that absurd brought into existence?

The fact that q can not possible be false, means only one thing: that it did not depend on God for it to exist!

p = Man exists
q = Baked bread we eat, exists
argument: p->q
~p ->~q No man, no bread.
but q!
You proove that baked bread did not depend on Man to exist, because it does exist and we can't imagine life without sliced bread.

You seem desperately trying to proove yourself that god doesn't exist. No need for that. Like h-particle, you don't need it for your theory, its too limited to include god anyway. Better realize that there are limits to comprehension, and that those limits are ours not reality's.

Think more about instant separating nonexistence and existence. Consider logic nonexistent aswell.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wimms
Thats because 'in theory' defines 'exist' by requirement to interact with 'known to theory' forms. It accepts phenomena as existing only if it has been included into theory. How about unknown forms?

Oh, that name would also be good.

You know how hard it is to detect a neutrino? Suppose h-particle together with h-like g-particle can form n-particle that can interact with matter. Does h-particle exist now? Suppose h-particle interacts with Earth matter once in a million years. Would we notice? Would we claim it doesn't exist? Suppose it interacts with neutrino in some weird conditions not found on earth. What do we have to say about such particle? Based on our theories, it does not exist. Is that a final conclusion? Such particle isn't needed for our theory, it doesn't exist within our theory, but this doesn't mean it is impossible in reality.

You showed that the h-particle can make its objective existence clear, although not direclty, but indirectly.
So it would not be completely unknowable then.
Hence: not absurd.

Extrapolate, and assume that there might exist a lot more than what we possibly can become aware of on earth. I'm not first one to say that reality is a lot more bizarre than we could ever possibly imagine. Reality isn't limited by our theories. Our theories are limited by our imagination and what we can interact with.

But do you consider theories that are about 'acausal' existence in principle acceptable?

Take particles that do not interact in a causal connection, but still do interact. What can we say about them? wow, and we apply probability waves, that allow us to find same particle on either side of universe.. Isnt that absurd brought into existence?

Well, this position is already taken as an interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is an interpretation that says that even in principle the behaviour of the quantum events is unknowable, and can only be approximated with statistics.

I go from the point of view that causality exists as an overall feature and all including feauture of reality. One of THE most basic features of reality.
A quantum event is indeterministic to US, because we have no practical way to determine the system. The system itself is however determinate. Since we don't know the hidden parameters, we approx. with quantum mechanics.

p = Man exists
q = Baked bread we eat, exists
argument: p->q
~p ->~q No man, no bread.
but q!
You proove that baked bread did not depend on Man to exist, because it does exist and we can't imagine life without sliced bread.

Both man and baked bread can be non-existing.

I don't think the dinosaur ate baked bread.

So, this is not the same case.

But I think that you have a point in that my logic is not absolutely waterproof.

The point about my previous argument is of course, that we would need to have the world to have primary existence of it's own. That would mean, without the world to exists, there would be nothing, which is however impossible, since that would not account for there being something now, because from nothing comes nothing.

Thereby it (the primary substance of the world) would not be dependend on anything else.

You seem desperately trying to proove yourself that god doesn't exist. No need for that. Like h-particle, you don't need it for your theory, its too limited to include god anyway. Better realize that there are limits to comprehension, and that those limits are ours not reality's.

Think more about instant separating nonexistence and existence. Consider logic nonexistent aswell. [/B]

What instant are you referring to? Existence of what? That of matter or that of consciousness?

Logic nonexistent? Non-existence can not be, therefore existence must be?

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by heusdens
You showed that the h-particle can make its objective existence clear, although not direclty, but indirectly.
So it would not be completely unknowable then.
Hence: not absurd.

Yes, but notice the catch - we can ever detect only n-particle. Our 'theory' knows only it, assigns it some mystical property, and that's it. To even talk about h-particle, we must assume that it could exist without any chance for us to even detect it. In frame of your definition, it is extremely difficult to justify introduction of such particle. Basically, you must accept existence of something you can never detect. It is absurd until you are happy with introducing it into your theory, after that act, it becomes logical. But, as you can not confirm it, you are left with many possible h-like particles that could all fit into your theory, and you'll be unable to know which of the zoo is actually real. You can't even know if any of them is real. You're detached from it, and you simply can't know.
You have to believe in one or another.

But do you consider theories that are about 'acausal' existence in principle acceptable?

yes. I'm unable to discard that possibility.

Well, this position is already taken as an interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is an interpretation that says that even in principle the behaviour of the quantum events is unknowable, and can only be approximated with statistics.

I go from the point of view that causality exists as an overall feature and all including feauture of reality. One of THE most basic features of reality.

nonzero probability of finding same particle anywhere over the universe at any time is very bold statistics to be viewed as causal. What can I say, there exists nonzero probabilty that g-like god exists anywhere in universe at any time with property of being never detectable directly, but only as a result of clash with h-like hell particle that results in n-like existence we can detect...

Both man and baked bread can be non-existing.

yes, but if you can imagine non-existing bread, why can't you imagine non-existing anything?

The point about my previous argument is of course, that we would need to have the world to have primary existence of it's own. That would mean, without the world to exist, there would be nothing, which is however impossible, since that would not account for there being something now, because from nothing comes nothing.

I guess we've been there. Your deepest belief is that there is no place for acausal in this universe. I can't discard this possibility, so your reasoning looks closedminded to me. You assume many things here: that not single event can be acausal, that single acausal event would exclude causality completely, that you can apply logic to non-existence, that logic exists even if nothing else exists, that everything always existed and that this needs no 'reason' aka cause to be questioned.

What instant are you referring to? Existence of what? That of matter or that of consciousness?
Logic nonexistent? Non-existence can not be, therefore existence must be?

Let it go for a while, and think what if it all had beginning, logic, matter, universe, all the fish. Then there would be an instant that separates nonexistence and existence. Whatever you think of, matter, logic, conciousness. Discarding this possiblity just because today everything seems so causal might be unwarranted.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wimms
Yes, but notice the catch - we can ever detect only n-particle. Our 'theory' knows only it, assigns it some mystical property, and that's it. To even talk about h-particle, we must assume that it could exist without any chance for us to even detect it. In frame of your definition, it is extremely difficult to justify introduction of such particle. Basically, you must accept existence of something you can never detect. It is absurd until you are happy with introducing it into your theory, after that act, it becomes logical. But, as you can not confirm it, you are left with many possible h-like particles that could all fit into your theory, and you'll be unable to know which of the zoo is actually real. You can't even know if any of them is real. You're detached from it, and you simply can't know.
You have to believe in one or another.

In fact, isn't this (assumably) precisely the situation that occurs when we see those quantum random events? We see something occur (like virtual particles) but don't see a cause. Maybe there is a cause for it, but it is undetectable (as of yet).

yes. I'm unable to discard that possibility.

How does that feel? Don't you think the universe, all of existence somehow must make sense?

I feel myself rather uncomfortable with the idea.

Is 'acausality' in fact knowable? I mean there is an important difference between 1. not knowing the causes for an event and 2. knowing that it has no causes.
How can you rule out possibility 1. ever?

nonzero probability of finding same particle anywhere over the universe at any time is very bold statistics to be viewed as causal. What can I say, there exists nonzero probabilty that g-like god exists anywhere in universe at any time with property of being never detectable directly, but only as a result of clash with h-like hell particle that results in n-like existence we can detect...

Why do you think so?

Look at it like this. We have some complex system, which we observe, and everything makes perfectt sence. It is completely acausal.
But then, doe tho the scale on which we want to observe, the information content of what we observe, is gradually lowered.
And as it is lowered to such an extent that we don't see the acausal connections any more, we might think the system is acausal in nature.
But it isn't. It is just that we don't get every information from observing the system.

I do think, it works that way. No need to see some mystery. Only acknowledging the fact that we see we very small portion of all events, and don't see the causal connections any more.

yes, but if you can imagine non-existing bread, why can't you imagine non-existing anything?

What would I need to imagine to not exist?

I guess we've been there. Your deepest belief is that there is no place for acausal in this universe. I can't discard this possibility, so your reasoning looks closedminded to me. You assume many things here: that not single event can be acausal, that single acausal event would exclude causality completely, that you can apply logic to non-existence, that logic exists even if nothing else exists, that everything always existed and that this needs no 'reason' aka cause to be questioned.

My argument against acausal would be that if the universe would be acausal, then it would be in that way fundamentaly, and which makes all of the notions of causality, a mere coincidence.
The law of gravity, everything fits perfect in place, but it is just a coincidence.
Please dig into this some more, you can of course argue FOR acausality, but then you can not at the same time maintain causality.
It would all be a mere coincidence.

That is why I oppose acausality. The world could not be what it is now, when the universe would be acausal.


About this issue (why is there something, instead of nothing), see my thread https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3703"

Let it go for a while, and think what if it all had beginning, logic, matter, universe, all the fish. Then there would be an instant that separates nonexistence and existence. Whatever you think of, matter, logic, conciousness. Discarding this possiblity just because today everything seems so causal might be unwarranted.

It seems that the current paradigm shifts to that viewpoint (a begin of matter, space and time).
But to me it is still unthinkable, and I think the paradigm might shift again to theories that say something meaningfull about the causes of the Big Bang.

And most of all: I don't think that there is any physics / cosmology theory that states in the absolute sense that the Big Bang denotes the begin of time. It is a popular belief, but not based on what the actual theory states.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by heusdens
In fact, isn't this (assumably) precisely the situation that occurs when we see those quantum random events? We see something occur (like virtual particles) but don't see a cause. Maybe there is a cause for it, but it is undetectable (as of yet).

perfectly maybe. And when someone comes up with absurd idea, it well maybe have a 'place' in some theory..

How does that feel? Don't you think the universe, all of existence somehow must make sense?

Is 'acausality' in fact knowable? I mean there is an important difference between 1. not knowing the causes for an event and 2. knowing that it has no causes.
How can you rule out possibility 1. ever?

I don't. I just don't rule out 2. either.
How I feel? I feel that universe can't be exclusively causal OR acausal. I feel it must be partly both. And it is more comfortable than knowing that everything is predetermined or is nuthouse. Macro objects definitely fully obey causality. They are complex, result of recuring relationships. But some fundamental stuff, the cause of it all, itself has hard times to be explained causally. Laws, relationships, constants, they just exist. What cause can you find to their existence?
Do you feel like existence somehow makes sense?

Why do you think so?

Look at it like this. We have some complex system, which we observe, and everything makes perfect sence. It is just that we don't get every information from observing the system.
I do think, it works that way. No need to see some mystery. Only acknowledging the fact that we see we very small portion of all events, and don't see the causal connections any more.

I don't think so. Just there exists nonzero probability..
Though, you almost agree that there might exist particles that interact with us only indirectly. But why stop here? Why not allow for there to be whole world of particle beyond what we can detect? Complex world, interacting with itself, perhaps even concious. What would you say if 'h-like' particles together forms complex intelligent being, that happens to be the cause for matter and all laws in our universe? That is not mystery. What is mystery, is where the hell from did these particles come from?

What would I need to imagine to not exist?

meditate

My argument against acausal would be that if the universe would be acausal, then it would be in that way fundamentaly, and which makes all of the notions of causality, a mere coincidence.

No. There is no black&white in this world. It is full of dualities, opposites, causal/acausal is no exception by me. They have equal rights in this world. I don't accept either option as exclusive. World is more like sum of all possibilities.

Please dig into this some more, you can of course argue FOR acausality, but then you can not at the same time maintain causality. It would all be a mere coincidence. That is why I oppose acausality. The world could not be what it is now, when the universe would be acausal.

why? Say that laws of nature are here in the end acausally. But once appeared, they rule, and create causality. The only coincidence is that the laws happened to be such that allowed us to be here. Better pray that this wasn't a plan.

I don't think that there is any theory that states in the absolute sense that the Big Bang denotes the begin of time.

Thats not important. Possibility exists. Either case is weird anyway.

 

[Gale]

I think that existince needs to be defined before you can go attempt to classify what exists and what doesn't.

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Gale17
I think that existince needs to be defined before you can go attempt to classify what exists and what doesn't.

Agreed. There's usually a lot of confusion going on, and definitions can be crucial if you want to get anywhere with the ideas.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wimms
perfectly maybe. And when someone comes up with absurd idea, it well maybe have a 'place' in some theory..

I don't. I just don't rule out 2. either.
How I feel? I feel that universe can't be exclusively causal OR acausal. I feel it must be partly both. And it is more comfortable than knowing that everything is predetermined or is nuthouse. Macro objects definitely fully obey causality. They are complex, result of recuring relationships. But some fundamental stuff, the cause of it all, itself has hard times to be explained causally. Laws, relationships, constants, they just exist. What cause can you find to their existence?
Do you feel like existence somehow makes sense?

Yes. That is my idea in big lines. Existence makes somehow sense, since we make sense, and can make sense of the universe.

About this 'acausal' thing. You have the opinion that somehow causality would not be universal. That events could exist, which are not part of causality. Like I said before, that is only a macroscopic interpretation because we happen not to know each individual cause for every event we do observe.
Suppose for a moment this interpretation, is not just an interpretation, but is what factual happens. There are events which are perfectly causal, and some which are not.
By definition now, the acausal events are not happening due to causality. So, we can not limit anyhow the way this 'acausal' events take place. In fact 'acausality' would then rule everywhere. The causality we observe, would then be nothing but coincidences.
Nothing would make sense, any object any time
The fact that we see causality takes place, and we know of nothing for example that breaks the law of gravity, means that it can not just be a coincidence. It must mean therefore that what we have called 'acausal' things, are just the bottom layer of observational horizon (due to scale or distance circumstances) which are in fact not based on anything acausal happening, but because we happen not to be able to observe the causes.
Your error is that when you say that anything could happen acausal, this would immediately have to mean that everything happens acausal, cause by definition if something acausal takes place, it can not be based on causality. If acausal things only take place in certain conditions and circumstances, this by definition then means that there is a causal relationship which determines those 'acausal' events to take place on some levels but not on others.

I hope you see my point.

Let me point out what I mean with an example.

Suppose we have a room with a pool billiard. Above the table we habng a camera. We observe the billiard field, and we see the balls moving, etc. All this makes perfect sense, and everything is perfectly causal.
Now we go dim the light. Fewer and fewer light is visible, and we can not see now all the things that go on. But we do still some things that move. They seem to move in a strange way, as if they act by themselves. But as soon as we turn on the lights again, we see that there is nothing acausal going on. Just that our observation became to vague that it did no longer contain all the information needed to verify that there were only causal events.

I hope that explains my viewpoint.

I don't think so. Just there exists nonzero probability..
Though, you almost agree that there might exist particles that interact with us only indirectly. But why stop here? Why not allow for there to be whole world of particle beyond what we can detect? Complex world, interacting with itself, perhaps even concious. What would you say if 'h-like' particles together forms complex intelligent being, that happens to be the cause for matter and all laws in our universe? That is not mystery. What is mystery, is where the hell from did these particles come from?

I think you now crossed the border from speculative to absurd.

My speculation about absurd forms of matter, were just plays with ideas, they don't have reality.

meditate

Even when 'meditating' and imagining an 'absolute nothing' I can not get rid of the 'me mediditating' , 'me thinking' part in my mind.

I can not imagine in my mind a world in which the part 'me imagining the world' would not be present. Can you?
I could think about the world, as it would exist when I would not yet or not anymore be there. I merely would need to shift perception to that of some other point of view, and I can imagine that quite perfectly.
But I can not see the world without an actual point of view, without consciousness itself. And of course that is the case, because without consciousness itself there can be no consciousness of the world.
It would not perse mean though that the world itself would not exist.

No. There is no black&white in this world. It is full of dualities, opposites, causal/acausal is no exception by me. They have equal rights in this world. I don't accept either option as exclusive. World is more like sum of all possibilities.

why? Say that laws of nature are here in the end acausally. But once appeared, they rule, and create causality. The only coincidence is that the laws happened to be such that allowed us to be here. Better pray that this wasn't a plan.

You have the wrong perspective. If everything is causal, then it means there is no begin or end to causality.
So your notion that 'in last instance the world exists acausal' then is a faulty view. The world exists in every detail in a causal way. And since outside causality nothing exists, there are no causes outside causality.

Thats not important. Possibility exists. Either case is weird anyway.

Als probability only exists because causality exist.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by heusdens
Suppose .. There are events which are perfectly causal, and some which are not.
By definition now, the acausal events are not happening due to causality. So, we can not limit anyhow the way this 'acausal' events take place. In fact 'acausality' would then rule everywhere. The causality we observe, would then be nothing but coincidences. Nothing would make sense, any object any time

You don't get it, because you insist that its either one or another, but not both. You also seem to attribute too wide meaning to acausal, like acausal would mean that complex object like man could somehow acausally appear. This is meaningless, as complexity of object is a result of causality, thus complex object cannot appear acausally (if only coincidently). Only simplest most basic thing could be part of acausality, those that don't convey any kind of complexity. Complexity is then result of causal interactions between those basic things. In its most basic form, you could imagine that basic stuff appears acausally, and is then ruled by causality.

Your error is that when you say that anything could happen acausal, this would immediately have to mean that everything happens acausal, cause by definition if something acausal takes place, it can not be based on causality. If acausal things only take place in certain conditions and circumstances, this by definition then means that there is a causal relationship which determines those 'acausal' events to take place on some levels but not on others.

I've never said 'anything' can happen acausally. And it does NOT mean that everything happens acausal. Why are you stuck with such exclusion?
Yes, I mean that acausal takes place in certain conditions, which is where causality ends. When you trace causality to its fundamentals, you do either of a) infinite regression without any hope to find any cause of it all, or b) cut the crap and find that beyond some point things are further irreducable in causal way. Thats the point where is border between causal and acausal. Error would be stop the regression at 'wrong' point and claim that molecule exists acausally for eg. But equally wrong is to 'hope' that after infinite regression you'd find THE cause. You can't find THE cause because it would itself be by definition acausal! And without finding it ever there is no cause either. So you'll hit into acausal anyway, why deny its place in the world then?

I think you now crossed the border from speculative to absurd.
My speculation about absurd forms of matter, were just plays with ideas, they don't have reality.

define border. You don't think I believe that its real do you? And how would you know they don't have reality if you could only detect cumulative results of their existence? You can only 'define' that they have no reality.

I can not imagine in my mind a world in which the part 'me imagining the world' would not be present. Can you?

no, but I can get the gist of the possibility.

You have the wrong perspective. If everything is causal, then it means there is no begin or end to causality.

that I'd call religion. Everything can't be causal..

So your notion that 'in last instance the world exists acausal' then is a faulty view. The world exists in every detail in a causal way. And since outside causality nothing exists, there are no causes outside causality.

You still don't get it. I'm not saying world exists in acausal manner. I'm saying that the only way to come into existence is to do so acausally. There is no way how you could create something from nothing causally. Outside causality exists nothing, but coming into existence from nothing is acausal, giving initial cause to the rest.

 

[Iacchus32]

Anything which is an outright lie is absurd. And yet because something is not provable, within the prescribed limits of certain methodologies, does not make it absurd.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Anything which is an outright lie is absurd. And yet because something is not provable, within the prescribed limits of certain methodologies, does not make it absurd.

It is not absurd,, because it is not proven, it is absurd if it is by definition impossible to proof.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wimms
You don't get it, because you insist that its either one or another, but not both. You also seem to attribute too wide meaning to acausal, like acausal would mean that complex object like man could somehow acausally appear. This is meaningless, as complexity of object is a result of causality, thus complex object cannot appear acausally (if only coincidently). Only simplest most basic thing could be part of acausality, those that don't convey any kind of complexity. Complexity is then result of causal interactions between those basic things. In its most basic form, you could imagine that basic stuff appears acausally, and is then ruled by causality.

I've never said 'anything' can happen acausally. And it does NOT mean that everything happens acausal. Why are you stuck with such exclusion?
Yes, I mean that acausal takes place in certain conditions, which is where causality ends. When you trace causality to its fundamentals, you do either of a) infinite regression without any hope to find any cause of it all, or b) cut the crap and find that beyond some point things are further irreducable in causal way. Thats the point where is border between causal and acausal. Error would be stop the regression at 'wrong' point and claim that molecule exists acausally for eg. But equally wrong is to 'hope' that after infinite regression you'd find THE cause. You can't find THE cause because it would itself be by definition acausal! And without finding it ever there is no cause either. So you'll hit into acausal anyway, why deny its place in the world then?

define border. You don't think I believe that its real do you? And how would you know they don't have reality if you could only detect cumulative results of their existence? You can only 'define' that they have no reality.

no, but I can get the gist of the possibility.

that I'd call religion. Everything can't be causal..

I am certain that it is YOU who is not getting this.
So, what you basically say, causality is not a universal and general principle. That simply kills ALL of causality, and one can't escape that conclusion.

Let me try to explain the reasoning.

So, you say that apart from causal events, also a-causal events can occur. What then would determine wether an event is causal or a-causal?
If you state that somehow, a-causal events are limited in any way to some kind of events, and not other events, then you are implying that there is some determining factor or cause, that makes some events a-causal, and other events causal.
BUT THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE, because something a-causal can not be determined by any cause, by definition.
So, if you want to introduce a-casuality, this must necessarily mean that all events behave a-causal.
The only way for explaing that the world 'looks' causal at some level then is to say that all that is just COINCIDENCE.

That is however an absurdity. If we have so umimagniable evidence fot the behaviour of events as causal, this can not just be coincidence, but must be a general and universal principle for ALL events, at every scale!

Now, how to explain then that some evens look 'acausal'. The explenation here is quite simple. We can only state that something is causal, if we have the practical means to observe ALL phenomena happening. If for some reason we can only observe a part of the phemomena, and not others, then it certainly LOOKS acausal, but it is not acausal.
In sub atomic physcics, we do have a practical barrier in which we can no longer observe everything that goes on.
Cuase the act of observing also means interfering with the event going on. The observation itself kills part of that which we want to observe, and therefore it is impossible to see all the events that make it a causal event. It looks therefore acausal, but it is not.

You still don't get it. I'm not saying world exists in acausal manner. I'm saying that the only way to come into existence is to do so acausally. There is no way how you could create something from nothing causally. Outside causality exists nothing, but coming into existence from nothing is acausal, giving initial cause to the rest.

One way you need to see that there is causality, but in another way you don't want to see that it is universal and general.
For causality to exist, there are no 'causes' indeed. It is just because causality is the way in which the world exists, that it can not lead to a 'primal' cause of some sorts.
You are stating that "outside of causality nothing exists" and on the other hand you state that "coming into existence from nothing is acausal, giving initial cause to the rest".
You don't see your appearant paradox here. Your mind requires you to THINK that somehow when tracing down all the causes, a primal cause must be found. That cause would then be acausal, which is a contradiction within itself.
But where does it state that there has to be a begin? Where?
It is only your mind that thinks of that as a necessity. This is quite obvious, since your mind itself, has had a begin.
But what is true for the mind is not true for the objective world of matter.

The material world has no begin, and hence there is no acausality to begin with. There is just causality.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
It is not absurd,, because it is not proven, it is absurd if it is by definition impossible to proof.

By whose definitions, and by whose methodologies? Are you saying it's impossible to prove? And yet there are many who claim to have proven God does exist, at least to themselves. Does that mean it's impossible to prove then?

Well let's just say that He does exist, and this is the only means by which it can be ascertained, it still means that it can be proven, in which case it's not absurd.

Or else how could we even conceive of the idea, if it didn't involve someone having first-hand knowledge about it? There's something about the idea that hits too close to home, to think it just popped up purely by random.

 

[wimms]

If you think that you have a mission to 'convert' me to causal-only thinking, then you are late. I've never rejected possibility that world could be causal-only eternal existence. Yet this is not the only possibility. You are rejecting acausal without justification..

Originally posted by heusdens
So, what you basically say, causality is not a universal and general principle. That simply kills ALL of causality, and one can't escape that conclusion.

duh. gimme a break. Nothing kills causality.

So, you say that apart from causal events, also a-causal events can occur. What then would determine wether an event is causal or a-causal?

Causality. That which cannot be caused by any causal reasons in principle, is acausal, by very definition of causality.
Examples: Existence, causality, beginning, matter, universal constants, laws.

If you state that somehow, a-causal events are limited in any way to some kind of events, and not other events, then you are implying that there is some determining factor or cause, that makes some events a-causal, and other events causal.
BUT THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE, because something a-causal can not be determined by any cause, by definition.

I am NOT implying anything of this kind. Don't put words into my mouth. I've never implied that acausal has any cause. Some events could be acausal precisely because they don't have any cause. Acausal events are limited by causality itself, because acausal are they only when they can't be causal. All the rest would be perfectly causal. What so big deal with that? Why can't you imagine that 1 in 10e1000 events is acausal?

What you observe, is 'effects' anyway. You can't observe cause, you can only deduce that there must be a cause. Whether the cause is real or effect without cause aka acausal, you can't ever possibly know, period. You can make statistical observation and reason that you CAN put all effects you observe into cause-effect chains without any inconsistencies. When you succeed, you can say that its very likely only causal events occur. When you fail, it sux. You claim boldly that we can't ever possibly fail. I say that hey, I'd not be that sure.

So, if you want to introduce a-casuality, this must necessarily mean that all events behave a-causal.

you didn't show the slightest .. WHY.

Now, how to explain then that some evens look 'acausal'. The explenation here is quite simple. We can only state that something is causal, if we have the practical means to observe ALL phenomena happening. If for some reason we can only observe a part of the phemomena, and not others, then it certainly LOOKS acausal, but it is not acausal.

No need to 'explain' uncertainty principle to me. What we observe is UNCERTAIN, this has nothing to do with acausal. I'm not saying that anything we don't know yet is acausal! Or that anything randomlooking is. I'm saying that acausal can't be ruled out.

In sub atomic physcics, we do have a practical barrier in which we can no longer observe everything that goes on.

Have it ever crossed your mind, that there might also be 'logical barrier' in which we can no longer 'cause' something in logically consistent manner? What then?

For causality to exist, there are no 'causes' indeed. It is just because causality is the way in which the world exists, that it can not lead to a 'primal' cause of some sorts.

Ah, Causality exists 'because' causality exists. Its certainly powerful explanation...

You are stating that "outside of causality nothing exists" and on the other hand you state that "coming into existence from nothing is acausal, giving initial cause to the rest".
You don't see your appearant paradox here. Your mind requires you to THINK that somehow when tracing down all the causes, a primal cause must be found.

There is no paradox here. Apparent is only that you don't understand the statement. Initial acausal event could be first primordial particles coming into existence from nada. From that point on, it interacts with what else exists, of acausal origin or whatnot, causally. To exist is to interact causally. To come into existence from nada, is to do so acausally.

My mind only requires me to be open to options. I'm not closing my mind to some because they 'feel' wrong. You?

That cause would then be acausal, which is a contradiction within itself.
But where does it state that there has to be a begin? Where?

Causality. Exclusive causality requires Cause. You either give cause to existence, or give up exclusive causality. "because it always was" is circular. It doesn't prove anything, it doesn't disprove anything.

I'm not claiming that there has to be begin. I'm only claiming that it is also possibility. You 'say' that acausal is impossible. I say that heck, it is, and you won't even know its acausal. You'll 'invent' some cause to it, to match the effect it produced.

The material world has no begin, and hence there is no acausality to begin with. There is just causality.

Says who?? Not that I'd reject this, but where the hell does such certainty come from?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
By whose definitions, and by whose methodologies? Are you saying it's impossible to prove? And yet there are many who claim to have proven God does exist, at least to themselves. Does that mean it's impossible to prove then?

My argument is an argument from a given definition, in which God is defined as an actor outside and apart from time, matter and space.

I does not necessarliy mean that God can not be defined in another way, nor that there can not be a definition of God that could be less absurd.

Well let's just say that He does exist, and this is the only means by which it can be ascertained, it still means that it can be proven, in which case it's not absurd.

As long as that is only a statement (of faith, or belief) it does not proof anything. If you come to that conclusion however from a position of knowledge of any means, then we can look into that.

Or else how could we even conceive of the idea, if it didn't involve someone having first-hand knowledge about it? There's something about the idea that hits too close to home, to think it just popped up purely by random.

That is not how we deal with such matters, cause how do we know then that such a statement is trustworthy? Anybody can make any claims about reality, which does not - in itself - proof something.

Who knows what might come up in someone's brain, if we have to take all such claims serious, without any objective evidence

There are people who claim to have been kidnapped by UFO's, or people who claim to be paranormal, and other such things. Do we have to take all those people serious, when there is no objective evidence?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
My argument is an argument from a given definition, in which God is defined as an actor outside and apart from time, matter and space.

I does not necessarliy mean that God can not be defined in another way, nor that there can not be a definition of God that could be less absurd.

Either that or He exists "within" matter and space (another dimension), in which case that might be a different story.

As long as that is only a statement (of faith, or belief) it does not proof anything. If you come to that conclusion however from a position of knowledge of any means, then we can look into that.

If in fact God exists in another dimension which, can only be accessed through the human mind, then you will have to be willing to take into account one's "personal experience." So it sounds like science will have to come up with a better methodology in order to take this into account.

That is not how we deal with such matters, cause how do we know then that such a statement is trustworthy? Anybody can make any claims about reality, which does not - in itself - proof something.

Who knows what might come up in someone's brain, if we have to take all such claims serious, without any objective evidence

There are people who claim to have been kidnapped by UFO's, or people who claim to be paranormal, and other such things. Do we have to take all those people serious, when there is no objective evidence?

And yet the idea of God or "mystical beings" is an idea that has cropped up time and time again, throughout history, and clear across the globe. So this isn't something which is isolated to just one or two brains.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Either that or He exists "within" matter and space (another dimension), in which case that might be a different story.

Don't play tricks. God is the omnipotent, omniscient consciouss creator of all there is. So this makes it clear that God (a being in consciouss form) was there before there was matter.

If in fact God exists in another dimension which, can only be accessed through the human mind, then you will have to be willing to take into account one's "personal experience." So it sounds like science will have to come up with a better methodology in order to take this into account.

Or you would have to conceed with logic and reason that there is and can not be a God, since matter is primary and consciouss is secondary.

And yet the idea of God or "mystical beings" is an idea that has cropped up time and time again, throughout history, and clear across the globe. So this isn't something which is isolated to just one or two brains.

Any idea has to be tested against reality itself.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Don't play tricks. God is the omnipotent, omniscient consciouss creator of all there is. So this makes it clear that God (a being in consciouss form) was there before there was matter.

And what does it say in the Bible? ... "The kingdom of heaven is within." Need I say more than that?

Or you would have to conceed with logic and reason that there is and can not be a God, since matter is primary and consciouss is secondary.

Afraid it would be the other way around if the "invisible God" existed first.

Any idea has to be tested against reality itself.

And yet you're obviously not referring to the internal "spiritual reality."

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And what does it say in the Bible? ... "The kingdom of heaven is within." Need I say more than that?

It sure looks like the theists wants us to believe that the universe itself came into being by the act of this creator.

What you say now, would limite the 'acts of the creator' to only the 'creation' of consciouss awareness of the material world.
God would then reside nowhere but in the mind itself.

That is what I suspect what God is : a concept within the mind itself.

Afraid it would be the other way around if the "invisible God" existed first.

By your remark above, that can't be the case. Or are you allowing to contradict yourself, or changed opinion?

It is obvious a contradiction to claim that anything consciouss could exist without there being a material objective world in the first place. One can only be consciouss of something, if there is something (outside, independend and apart) of oneself to be consciouss of.
You can only be self consciouss if you can distinguish between self and not-self.
Consciouss must be based on the material world existing in first instance, to base one's consciouss upon. There can only be subjectiveness when there is first and in primary instance an objective, primary world.

That means God has no place outside of the human consciouss, as a human concept.

And yet you're obviously not referring to the internal "spiritual reality."

You mean mindly concepts or patterns, that exist within one's consciousness.