Hell Is Real And Souls Go There

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
961

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
QM link:

“Randomness comes in two qualitatively different forms. Apparent randomness can result both from ignorance or lack of control of degrees of freedom in the system. In contrast, intrinsic randomness should not be ascribable to any such cause. While classical systems only possess the first kind of randomness, quantum systems are believed to exhibit some intrinsic randomness. In general, any observed random process includes both forms of randomness. In this work, we provide quantum processes in which all the observed randomness is fully intrinsic. These results are derived under minimal assumptions: the validity of the no-signalling principle and an arbitrary (but not absolute) lack of freedom of choice. The observed randomness tends to a perfect random bit when increasing the number of parties, thus defining an explicit process attaining full randomness amplification.”[/quote]

Hence the definitions scientific randomness vs. philosophical randomness are different. As described above this statement “we provide quantum processes in which all the observed randomness is fully intrinsic” is does not fit the definition of an uncaused event philosophically. Having an intrinsic random behavior is caused by virtue of the fact that said observed randomness is an intrinsic property of that which is observed. That means said particle is following the pattern of a property in which it posses.
For instance, firing a photon at a double slit window, you don’t know which slit it is going to go through, but it’s going to go through a slit and hit the media behind it. That alone ‘appears’ random, but there are some problems with that. A photon must be put into motion, it always goes through a slit and if you fire enough of them, they always create an interference pattern. It’s ‘random’ with constraints. A truly random act cannot be constrained, cannot follow any kind of a pattern and can never be predicted.
We know a photon is going to go through one of two slits, we know that enough photons will go through both slits and create an interference pattern.
That’s the problem with using quantum mechanics. We don’t know why a photon behaves like it does, but it does behave in a mostly predictable way. The only thing we cannot predict is which slit it’s going to go through. It doesn’t do it for no reason at all. As the post above said, it’s an intrinsic property, and if it’s intrinsic, it’s caused.
Randomness by philosophical standards this does not fit. On the whole it’s a predictable event guided by internal or external principles. And it’s not unreasonable to question why it’s doing what it’s doing. Philosophically, randomness is something that happens for no reason. Not that a cause that has yet to be identified or not well understood, it has literally no reason for it’s existence. There is a reason particles flip their polarity, or photons go through one slit vs another. It may be intrinsic or external, but it is not from nothing-> something.
Look at the forest and there is a predictable pattern that is repeatable. Look at the tree and you see a seemingly random event. But the event is not random, just not understood and there are as many theories as photons in an interference pattern as to why.

962

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]
[A circle] and [something that has exactly the properties of a circle] are not identical.

This is your contention. Do you stand by it?[/quote]

Correct.[/quote]

Alright. Very good. Now: I lead you into a room and show you a circle.

SMH: What is this?

Pat: This is a circle.

SMH: Is this something?

Pat: Yes.

SMH: Does it have exactly the properties of a circle?

Pat: Yes.

SMH: Then it is something that has exactly the properties of a circle?

Pat: Yes.

SMH: In all cases, would this thing be something that has exactly the properties of a circle, so long as it were still a circle?

Pat: Yes.

SMH: And, in all cases, so long as this were still a thing with exactly the properties of a circle, would this thing be a circle?

Pat: Yes.

SMH: Then to call something [a circle] is exactly the same as to call it [something that has exactly the properties of a circle]?

Pat: Yes.

SMH: Then the terms are exactly and in all cases interchangeable, the one being so always and only if the other is also so, and vice versa?

Pat: Yes.

SMH: Then the proposition that a circle is a circle because it is [something that has exactly the properties of a circle] is fundamentally identical to the proposition that a circle is a circle because it is [a circle]?

Pat: …

963

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

No. The properties of a circle are it’s properties, not the circle itself. They are not interchangeable. The properties of a circle are it’s properties and not the circle itself. The circle it identifiably different than it’s properties. It occupies different metaphysical space.
[/quote]

I gave this premise, you responded with “no.”

Logically, then, you contend the following:

[A circle] and [something that has exactly the properties of a circle] are not identical.

This is your contention. Do you stand by it?[/quote]

Correct. Two particulars cannot occupy the same ‘space’.[/quote]

I am not talking about the particulars, I am talking about the set of properties or truths signified by each bracketed notion. They are in fact identical: they match perfectly and exactly. And therefore the two notions are perfectly interchangeable. And therefore…yadda yadda, you know the argument (see above).

964

[quote]pat wrote:

Hence the definitions scientific randomness vs. philosophical randomness are different. As described above this statement “we provide quantum processes in which all the observed randomness is fully intrinsic” is does not fit the definition of an uncaused event philosophically. Having an intrinsic random behavior is caused by virtue of the fact that said observed randomness is an intrinsic property of that which is observed. That means said particle is following the pattern of a property in which it posses.
For instance, firing a photon at a double slit window, you don’t know which slit it is going to go through, but it’s going to go through a slit and hit the media behind it. That alone ‘appears’ random, but there are some problems with that. A photon must be put into motion, it always goes through a slit and if you fire enough of them, they always create an interference pattern. It’s ‘random’ with constraints. A truly random act cannot be constrained, cannot follow any kind of a pattern and can never be predicted.
We know a photon is going to go through one of two slits, we know that enough photons will go through both slits and create an interference pattern.
That’s the problem with using quantum mechanics. We don’t know why a photon behaves like it does, but it does behave in a mostly predictable way. The only thing we cannot predict is which slit it’s going to go through. It doesn’t do it for no reason at all. As the post above said, it’s an intrinsic property, and if it’s intrinsic, it’s caused.
Randomness by philosophical standards this does not fit. On the whole it’s a predictable event guided by internal or external principles. And it’s not unreasonable to question why it’s doing what it’s doing. Philosophically, randomness is something that happens for no reason. Not that a cause that has yet to be identified or not well understood, it has literally no reason for it’s existence. There is a reason particles flip their polarity, or photons go through one slit vs another. It may be intrinsic or external, but it is not from nothing-> something.
Look at the forest and there is a predictable pattern that is repeatable. Look at the tree and you see a seemingly random event. But the event is not random, just not understood and there are as many theories as photons in an interference pattern as to why. [/quote]

Pat–to be honest with you, I’d like to continue with the other discussion and not this one. This is not intended as an insult, but something like QM is too easy to misunderstand and, even more so, too easy to fudge about. I will say, though, that it is utterly and very provably correct to aver that a particular and very popular interpretation of QM holds that intrinsic randomness exists in some cases (I’ve already proved this).

From that, we take the axiom “Intrinsic randomness exists.”

And this leads to the evisceration of your original contention.

This is not something that can be argued. If something happens–even but a single time–which is intrinsically random, then the notions of causality and contingency that you offered cannot be universally applied and thus are not acceptable maxims.

Now, QM could be wrong and you could be right. But that isn’t the point. The point is, tautologically, that your assumption was an assumption. The point is that every argument you come up with will rest on an assumption of similar kind and magnitude. I am in the middle of showing this in the circle argument as well, and I’d rather continue there, because, as I said, QM is simply too advanced.

965

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]
[A circle] and [something that has exactly the properties of a circle] are not identical.

This is your contention. Do you stand by it?[/quote]

Correct.[/quote]

Alright. Very good. Now: I lead you into a room and show you a circle.

SMH: What is this?

Pat: This is a circle.

SMH: Is this something?

Pat: Yes.

SMH: Does it have exactly the properties of a circle?

Pat: Yes.

SMH: Then it is something that has exactly the properties of a circle?

Pat: Yes.

SMH: In all cases, would this thing be something that has exactly the properties of a circle, so long as it were still a circle?

Pat: Yes.

SMH: And, in all cases, so long as this were still a thing with exactly the properties of a circle, would this thing be a circle?

Pat: Yes.

SMH: Then to call something [a circle] is exactly the same as to call it [something that has exactly the properties of a circle]?

Pat: Yes.

SMH: Then the terms are exactly and in all cases interchangeable, the one being so always and only if the other is also so, and vice versa?

Pat: Yes.

SMH: Then the proposition that a circle is a circle because it is [something that has exactly the properties of a circle] is fundamentally identical to the proposition that a circle is a circle because it is [a circle]?

Pat: …[/quote]

They are not interchangeable. The that which makes something what it is, is not the same as the ‘thing’ itself.

966

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Hence the definitions scientific randomness vs. philosophical randomness are different. As described above this statement “we provide quantum processes in which all the observed randomness is fully intrinsic” is does not fit the definition of an uncaused event philosophically. Having an intrinsic random behavior is caused by virtue of the fact that said observed randomness is an intrinsic property of that which is observed. That means said particle is following the pattern of a property in which it posses.
For instance, firing a photon at a double slit window, you don’t know which slit it is going to go through, but it’s going to go through a slit and hit the media behind it. That alone ‘appears’ random, but there are some problems with that. A photon must be put into motion, it always goes through a slit and if you fire enough of them, they always create an interference pattern. It’s ‘random’ with constraints. A truly random act cannot be constrained, cannot follow any kind of a pattern and can never be predicted.
We know a photon is going to go through one of two slits, we know that enough photons will go through both slits and create an interference pattern.
That’s the problem with using quantum mechanics. We don’t know why a photon behaves like it does, but it does behave in a mostly predictable way. The only thing we cannot predict is which slit it’s going to go through. It doesn’t do it for no reason at all. As the post above said, it’s an intrinsic property, and if it’s intrinsic, it’s caused.
Randomness by philosophical standards this does not fit. On the whole it’s a predictable event guided by internal or external principles. And it’s not unreasonable to question why it’s doing what it’s doing. Philosophically, randomness is something that happens for no reason. Not that a cause that has yet to be identified or not well understood, it has literally no reason for it’s existence. There is a reason particles flip their polarity, or photons go through one slit vs another. It may be intrinsic or external, but it is not from nothing-> something.
Look at the forest and there is a predictable pattern that is repeatable. Look at the tree and you see a seemingly random event. But the event is not random, just not understood and there are as many theories as photons in an interference pattern as to why. [/quote]

Pat–to be honest with you, I’d like to continue with the other discussion and not this one. This is not intended as an insult, but something like QM is too easy to misunderstand and, even more so, too easy to fudge about. I will say, though, that it is utterly and very provably correct to aver that a particular and very popular interpretation of QM holds that intrinsic randomness exists in some cases (I’ve already proved this).

From that, we take the axiom “Intrinsic randomness exists.”

And this leads to the evisceration of your original contention.

This is not something that can be argued. If something happens–even but a single time–which is intrinsically random, then the notions of causality and contingency that you offered cannot be universally applied and thus are not acceptable maxims.

Now, QM could be wrong and you could be right. But that isn’t the point. The point is, tautologically, that your assumption was an assumption. The point is that every argument you come up with will rest on an assumption of similar kind and magnitude. I am in the middle of showing this in the circle argument as well, and I’d rather continue there, because, as I said, QM is simply too advanced.[/quote]

It’s not me. I don’t come up with these things on my own.
It’s not an assumption. It’s a necessity. For instance, if this ‘randomness’ as you call is intrinsic, it’s still not uncaused. It’s following a rule. It’s subject to something else for its behavior.
What I like about QM is that it’s very close to the threshold of physical vs. metaphysical. If said photon is following a law of nature, which is metaphysical, it’s still caused to behave in the way it does. It does not have to relay on a physical cause for it’s behavior, it can rely on a rule based on it’s nature. ‘Laws’ cannot be measured, they are deduced to exist by the observation of consistent behaviour which is present here despite an inherent lack of physical cause. It does not need one.
It really boils down to the fact that something cannot happen for no reason. Whether that reason is something acting on something else, or something acting based on it’s own nature, both are still caused, and therefore not truly random events.
Things are caused because it’s antithesis is logically impossible and that’s why it’s not an assumption. And that is the case until you reduce to a point where you have to flip the equation around to remain logically consistent.
It’s the metaphysics that count in the end, everything else is the result of that.

967

[quote]pat wrote:

They are not interchangeable.[/quote]

They are. I have shown that they are. You should look into the phrase, “all definitions are tautological.”

In order to refute me, you need to show that the formal arguments I made are invalid. Formally. You have not done this.

968

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

No. A circle is a culmination of it’s properties it’s not exactly the same as it’s properties. It’s the result of and not exactly the same. That which make something up and what it is are not the same things. The whole is greater than the sum of it’s parts. A something is not it’s properties, it is the result. The problem is that other things can contain sum of the properties of the a circle and are not mutually exclusive to it. For you claim to be true, it would require that the properties of the circle are mutually exclusive to only the circle and could not be also properties of other things. That’s not the case.

It’s similar to a math equation 4+4=8, but 4+4 is not 8. 8 is the result of adding 4 of something to 4 of something. 4+4 is the function, 8 is the result of the function. One is a result, the other is a function. While in the end the result is 8 or a circle, the function and the result are 2 things not one and they are not exactly alike.

[quote]
Pat: No.

SMH: Then the terms are exactly and in all cases interchangeable, the one being so always and only if the other is also so, and vice versa?

Pat: No.

SMH: Then the proposition that a circle is a circle because it is [something that has exactly the properties of a circle] is fundamentally identical to the proposition that a circle is a circle because it is [a circle]?

Pat: …[/quote]

969

[quote]pat wrote:
For instance, if this ‘randomness’ as you call is intrinsic, it’s still not uncaused. It’s following a rule. It’s subject to something else for its behavior. [/quote]

Again, I don’t want to continue down the QM road. The quoted portion demonstrates why. It is:

A] A mere assertion with no evidence or argument attached. As a matter of fact, its first and third sentences make exactly the same argument-by-assertion, in slightly different terms (a caused event is one subject to an exterior condition and vice versa; saying the same thing twice does not bring it closer to the truth), without offering a lick of support. Its second sentence is ambiguous–I know what you’re trying to say, but you should be aware that there is a sprawling philosophical debate regarding the nature and reality of a physical “law.” As with the larger questions about proofs of God and uncaused events, you should not feel remotely near qualified enough to jump in and say definitively that you know who’s right and who’s wrong. (Neither, of course, should I. And I don’t.)

And it is also:

B] Not true. An intrinsically random event is by definition one not satisfactorily prefigured in the prior conditions, known and hidden alike, of its happening. I have made this point a number of times and am not sure that you’ve taken the time to think about it. An intrinsically random event is one that Laplace’s demon cannot predict regardless of his perfect knowledge of each of the universe’s known and hitherto-undiscovered “laws”. Understand that–truly understand it–and you will see what I’m saying.

970

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

No. A circle is a culmination of it’s properties it’s not exactly the same as it’s properties. It’s the result of and not exactly the same. That which make something up and what it is are not the same things. The whole is greater than the sum of it’s parts. A something is not it’s properties, it is the result. The problem is that other things can contain sum of the properties of the a circle and are not mutually exclusive to it. For you claim to be true, it would require that the properties of the circle are mutually exclusive to only the circle and could not be also properties of other things. That’s not the case.

It’s similar to a math equation 4+4=8, but 4+4 is not 8. 8 is the result of adding 4 of something to 4 of something. 4+4 is the function, 8 is the result of the function. One is a result, the other is a function. While in the end the result is 8 or a circle, the function and the result are 2 things not one and they are not exactly alike.

Then please produce for me a last time your purest and cleanest definition of a circle. I promise you that I will take it and show from it that you are defining a circle tautologically. [Because you have to be.]

971

[quote]pat wrote:
A circle is a culmination of it’s properties it’s not exactly the same as it’s properties.

That which make something up and what it is are not the same things.

The whole is greater than the sum of it’s parts.

Something is not it’s properties, it is the result.[/quote]

^Each of these is an assumption. Please prove them.

^It is unclear what you mean to be saying here. A circle will always be something with exactly the properties of a circle, and vice versa. There is not possible universe in which one could be so without the other.

972

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

They are not interchangeable.[/quote]

They are. I have shown that they are. You should look into the phrase, “all definitions are tautological.”
[/quote]
They are not interchangeable. That is correct, but that’s not the same thing as saying a thing is the same thing as it’s properties. The fact that all things true by definition, does not make the thing and it’s definition the same thing. They are not. There is a fuction and a result. There is a thing and there is it’s definition of a thing. The thing and it’s definition are not the same exact thing. A thing is something because it’s properties define it to be what it is, but thing is not it’s properties, it’s the result. That’s a different thing than to say that something is something because it’s something. Something cannot be a function of itself. It’s then undefinable.

[quote]

In order to refute me, you need to show that the formal arguments I made are invalid. Formally. You have not done this.[/quote]
A set of properties result in something. A something is not it’s set of properties. A thing has properties. A thing is not it’s properties.

973

[quote]pat wrote:
A something is not it’s set of properties.
[/quote]

Prove this.

974

You will never correctly define a circle without saying, in more words, that it is a circle. It will literally never be done.

975

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
For instance, if this ‘randomness’ as you call is intrinsic, it’s still not uncaused. It’s following a rule. It’s subject to something else for its behavior. [/quote]

Again, I don’t want to continue down the QM road. The quoted portion demonstrates why. It is:

A] A mere assertion with no evidence or argument attached. As a matter of fact, its first and third sentences make exactly the same argument-by-assertion, in slightly different terms (a caused event is one subject to an exterior condition and vice versa; saying the same thing twice does not bring it closer to the truth), without offering a lick of support. Its second sentence is ambiguous–I know what you’re trying to say, but you should be aware that there is a sprawling philosophical debate regarding the nature and reality of a physical “law.” As with the larger questions about proofs of God and uncaused events, you should not feel remotely near qualified enough to jump in and say definitively that you know who’s right and who’s wrong. (Neither, of course, should I. And I don’t.)
[/quote]
That’s not what I am doing. I don’t know who’s right or wrong in the debate on photon behaviour, nor do I care. All I am saying the behavior happens for a reason, not for no reason. If it’s behavior is intrinsic, then it’s subject to that which makes it so, and that is a causal event. If the behavior is the result of the laws that bind it to make it behave the way it does, then that is causal. Whether the reason a photon chooses one slit or another is caused by an external force or an internal property does not much matter, in either event they are both caused.

[quote]
And it is also:

B] Not true. An intrinsically random event is by definition one not satisfactorily prefigured in the prior conditions, known and hidden alike, of its happening. I have made this point a number of times and am not sure that you’ve taken the time to think about it. An intrinsically random event is one that Laplace’s demon cannot predict regardless of his perfect knowledge of each of the universe’s known and hitherto-undiscovered “laws”. Understand that–truly understand it–and you will see what I’m saying.[/quote]

Ah, but this event can be predicted even with imperfect knowledge. Given the choice between two slits, it’s going through one of them. That’s predictable behavior. It’s over all behavior is predictable, an aspect behavior is not. It’s paradoxical, but not without reason. Hell, there is a reason it’s paradoxical.

Of course, it can also be argued that perfect knowledge that cannot predict an aspect the behavior of something even though it knows everything about it, is by default imperfect because that would also entail knowledge of all past and future events. I.E., said perfect knowledge would require it would know because it would have already happened to that which contains said perfect knowledge.
If you have perfect knowledge of everything that is, then you already know which slit the photon chose. Since time would no longer be a factor, you have to know all that is and all that ever will be which would include the ‘choice’ of said photon.

I don’t think you can truly say you cannot know why it does what it does. The reason is that we would need perfect knowledge to validate that statement. That’s the only way to validate it. Verifiably knowing all that can be known, and knowing that behavior is excluded from being knowable.

Like I said, though, we can predict its behavior in a large scale. We know it will go through a slit, we know it will hit the media behind the slit and we know if we throw enough photons at the slits, it will create a disturbance pattern. That’s a whole lot of knowing about something that can’t be known.

976

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
A something is not it’s set of properties.
[/quote]

Prove this.[/quote]

Prove it false first.

977

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
A something is not it’s set of properties.
[/quote]

Prove this.[/quote]

Prove it false first.[/quote]

No no no, sir. You have made the claim, you must prove the claim. You don’t have to prove to me that I don’t own a talking dog; I have to prove to you that I do.

978

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
For instance, if this ‘randomness’ as you call is intrinsic, it’s still not uncaused. It’s following a rule. It’s subject to something else for its behavior. [/quote]

Again, I don’t want to continue down the QM road. The quoted portion demonstrates why. It is:

A] A mere assertion with no evidence or argument attached. As a matter of fact, its first and third sentences make exactly the same argument-by-assertion, in slightly different terms (a caused event is one subject to an exterior condition and vice versa; saying the same thing twice does not bring it closer to the truth), without offering a lick of support. Its second sentence is ambiguous–I know what you’re trying to say, but you should be aware that there is a sprawling philosophical debate regarding the nature and reality of a physical “law.” As with the larger questions about proofs of God and uncaused events, you should not feel remotely near qualified enough to jump in and say definitively that you know who’s right and who’s wrong. (Neither, of course, should I. And I don’t.)
[/quote]
That’s not what I am doing. I don’t know who’s right or wrong in the debate on photon behaviour, nor do I care. All I am saying the behavior happens for a reason, not for no reason. If it’s behavior is intrinsic, then it’s subject to that which makes it so, and that is a causal event. If the behavior is the result of the laws that bind it to make it behave the way it does, then that is causal. Whether the reason a photon chooses one slit or another is caused by an external force or an internal property does not much matter, in either event they are both caused.

A single intrinsically random event no matter how small or how wedged between caused events utterly nullifies the notions of contingency and causality that you proffered as universal maxims at the outset of this debate. So, too, If on the final balance sheet of causes and their effects there is but one SINGLE instance of something not exactly prefigured in the prior conditions of its happening.

Meditate on that word: exactly. Exactly prefigured. Not, “Well it was either going to be A or B.” Not anything like that. Exact prefiguration always and without the smallest or shortest exception, for every event in the past and every in the future and every conceivable. That is what your maxim demands.

Now, unfortunately, I have shown definitively that intrinsically random events are in fact averred, and thus that your assumption is in fact an assumption. I will be happy to continue debating about the circles, but this particular line of inquiry is settled, and, as I said earlier, it’s too easy to misunderstand and fudge. I will definitely like to make time for the continuation of the larger debate though.

979

A further question, Pat. [I don’t intend for this to take the place of the argument we’re having about tautological definitions, and I await your reponse on that front.]

If contingency and causality operate and reign as you say they do, then Laplace’s demon does in fact know what he purports it to know, yes? And each of the universe’s future happenings is exactly prefigured in its present state?

980

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
A something is not it’s set of properties.
[/quote]

Prove this.[/quote]

Prove it false first.[/quote]

No no no, sir. You have made the claim, you must prove the claim. You don’t have to prove to me that I don’t own a talking dog; I have to prove to you that I do.[/quote]

Well okay, I kinda thought I already did in my previous explanations. So we will work with something we can both see rather than imagine. Deductive logic functions in much the same way as math. In that the premises require a ‘function’ to tie them together.
So in the equation 4+4=8, first by mere observation we can see that 4+4 and 8 are not the same thing but different things. On the left side of the proposition, you have 2 values and 2 functions that make it an equation. It has a 4, another 4 and an addition function represented by ‘+’ and an equals function represented by ‘=’. The left hand side of the equation is not identical to the right side. The left has two values and fucntions, the right side has a result. The left side is an equation, the right a result. Though 4+4 can only equal 8 and will only always equal 8, 8 will never be 4+4. 8 will always be the result of, but not identical to 8.
Similarly, the properties of a circle will be it’s properties, but the properties require fucntion to make them into a circle, the properties alone don’t make a circle, the properties put together make a circle. The circle is the result of it’s properties, it is not ‘its’ properties. A conclusion is not it’s premises, it’s the result of it’s premises.