Is There a Cause Without a Cause?

[magpies]

So...

Lets say randomness total randomness exists in the world. Then I would have to assume that if that was true then every thing that happened would have to be in essence a totaly random occurance. It seems fairly clear that man made buildings are not a totaly random occurance. So that would tend to suggest that randomness does not exist in the world. However my assumption that man made buildings are not totaly random could be flawed in some way. So my question basicaly is how could man made buildings possibly be a random thing? It really doesn't seem possible to me that they are random and that makes me question if the universe itself happened randomly. If you consider the beginning of every thing to be the start of the universe then it can have no cause one would think. However the fact that nothing is random would lead one to question if the everything has a cause how ever stupid that idea might seem. So what cause could possibly exist that has no cause of its own? That seems to be a paradox possibly the most truthful paradox. If its true that the cause without a cause exists then what does that mean for our lifes? Perhaps this is why people struggle to find god or in other words an answer to all questions.

What are your thoughts on the cause without a cause? Do you think that buildings suggest that the universe is not random? If no answer to the cause question can be found should we give up or keep looking even after its clear we won't find an answer? If we keep trying to find an answer when none can possibly be found are we possibly missing out on some aspect of life? Or by doing so are we instead enriching life?

 

[DaveC426913]

Your logic makes no sense. Let me clarify:

Lets say red exists in the world. Then I would have to assume that if that was true then every thing that happened would have to be red.

Why does "something existing" result in the conclusion that "everything is that something"?


BTW, the concept that you are gonig to want to brush up on is called entropy, and it is at the core of any discsussion involving order from disorder, which is how you go from a disordered to an ordered building.

 

[magpies]

Well perhaps that is because I use a different form of logic then most people or at least that's the way it seems to me. The way I see it most people go from the idea that they know nothing about how the world works. Where as I tend to go from the fact that I do know about how the world works. The difference between the two is cute... A person who claims to know nothing of the world can honestly not be trusted with anything imo. Would you trust someone telling you how to travel thru a maze when they say that they know nothing about mazes?

Ok so you said red exists in the world... Then you said Assuming that its true that means everything is red.

This comment is some level true. It is true in the fact that everything has a color of some type and that all colors are more or less just a shade of red. Of course this is only dealing with physical objects and couldn't possibly include things that have no color. Color is basicaly just the way light reflects off of it in our eyes. So the things light can't reflect off would not have a color in our eyes. But if they were basicaly the same design of things with color they would basicaly have a color just an unseen color.

Entropy assumes a state of order... For any system to be in a state of entropy it must have some type of order to it. If you put a scale of 1-100 based on the entropy of our universe with 1 being the least effected by entropy... The beginning of the universe would be at 1 while we are at currently something like 20-50s depending on your outlook of how the universe ends. My personal thought is that entropy doesn't exactly work like a 1-100 scale. Instead more of like a on/off switch that when turned off turns back on.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well perhaps that is because I use a different form of logic then most people or at least that's the way it seems to me.

That is certainly the way it seems to me too.

The way I see it most people go from the idea that they know nothing about how the world works.

I don't know why you think that.

What people don't have is preconceptions about how the world works. Logic is designed to help us avoid the pitfalls of assuming we know, when in fact we don't.

Where as I tend to go from the fact that I do know about how the world works.

It is not fact that you know how the world works. It may be your belief that you know how the world works...

Your logic is flawed, thus you do not now how the world works.

Ok so you said red exists in the world... Then you said Assuming that its true that means everything is red.

This comment is some level true.

You do realize that I merely parroted your opening statements, substituting 'red' for 'random'? I did this to make it easier to see the flaw in the logic, which I then stated the flaw explicitly:

Why does "something existing" result in the conclusion that "everything is that something"?

Entropy assumes a state of order... For any system to be in a state of entropy it must have some type of order to it. If you put a scale of 1-100 based on the entropy of our universe with 1 being the least effected by entropy... The beginning of the universe would be at 1 while we are at currently something like 20-50s depending on your outlook of how the universe ends. My personal thought is that entropy doesn't exactly work like a c1-100 scale. Instead more of like a on/off switch that when turned off turns back on.

OK: don't have personal thoughts. You're talking nonsense.

Read. Learn.