Home | Community | Message Board


Avalon Magic Plants
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisiblemofo
Hobby Jingoist


Registered: 04/05/08
Posts: 2,232
Loc: Donkey Kong Kill Screen
The Assumption of Randomness
    #8786992 - 08/17/08 04:14 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

Isn't the assumption of random input into a system framed by rational theory analogous to a theistic explanation of things?  It just seems to me that it allows one to gloss over a very important part of the mechanism or reality.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinetr3eman9
That guy
Registered: 01/11/08
Posts: 11
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
Re: The Assumption of Randomness [Re: mofo]
    #8787013 - 08/17/08 04:18 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

amen, bro


--------------------
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDoseMeHomie
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/15/08
Posts: 2,252
Loc: 'merica
Re: The Assumption of Randomness [Re: mofo]
    #8787019 - 08/17/08 04:20 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

English?


--------------------
The Gospel


Edited by DoseMeHomie (08/17/08 04:39 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblemofo
Hobby Jingoist


Registered: 04/05/08
Posts: 2,232
Loc: Donkey Kong Kill Screen
Re: The Assumption of Randomness [Re: DoseMeHomie]
    #8787065 - 08/17/08 04:35 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

okay, basically dosemehomie, I'm asking about the underlying pattern of randomness that can be found throughout nature.  Where does it come from?  Why is it that it is random to the degree that it is?  Does it have any mechanism of its own?  Or can it even be understood at any deeper level than it is already?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDoseMeHomie
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/15/08
Posts: 2,252
Loc: 'merica
Re: The Assumption of Randomness [Re: mofo]
    #8787085 - 08/17/08 04:41 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

Is it really random? or does it just appear random to humans? maybe nature is a giant piece of art specifically designing itself in a way that may appear random to some. maybe its all part of a higher plan.


--------------------
The Gospel


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineyoubreakyoubuy
Monkey Mouth
 User Gallery


Registered: 10/16/05
Posts: 2,632
Last seen: 8 years, 1 month
Re: The Assumption of Randomness [Re: mofo]
    #8787383 - 08/17/08 06:19 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

mofo said:
Isn't the assumption of random input into a system framed by rational theory analogous to a theistic explanation of things?  It just seems to me that it allows one to gloss over a very important part of the mechanism or reality.




At the end of the day we all have to eat.  If we don't gloss over the mysteries of life, how are we supposed to survive?  Trapped in the labyrinth such questions blossom into, how is a cave man gonna get the grub?  To do the things necessary in order to live and prosper/succeed, it's important to take things at face value and get on with it all.

Theism in my opinion is just another way of coming to grips with the alpha/omega.  The beginning and the end.  How did we get here?  Where are we going?  If we get mesmerized by the bookends we'll never have time to read the shelf.

So anyway, what's the 'system framed by rational theory' that you think of?  What's the context?  If you are saying that this system is consciousness then I would have to argue against any kind of rational framework.  Consciousness is what it is.  Framework is something we apply to it.  If you mean the nature of the universe, then I argue that the nature of the universe is analogous to the nature of the mind.  And in my experience, the nature of the mind is anything but rational.  But again, what's the context of your statements?

Why is the assumption of random input necessarily theistic?  The phrase, "God doesn't play dice" comes to mind.  Seems that you are implying that he does.

Are you saying that belief in the manner of a theist (whatever that is), allows one to forget about the elephant in the room?  ("the mechanism of reality")


--------------------
Let that which doesn't matter truly not matter.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The Assumption of Randomness [Re: DoseMeHomie]
    #8787436 - 08/17/08 06:38 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Is it really random? or does it just appear random to humans?




What's the difference?  That is, what is the difference between something that is 'really' random or something that humans can simply never predict?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,227
Re: The Assumption of Randomness [Re: DieCommie]
    #8787470 - 08/17/08 06:46 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

When an event is labeled as random, this merely implies that at this current stage, we can't make a prediction about the event.  This is not to say that it is impossible to make a correct prediction; just that our current level of mathematical and technological sophistication isn't up to the task.  It's built into the nature of our neurological system to try and find patterns in the streams of incoming sensory data, but both order and chaos are merely human constructs--any pattern (or lack thereof) simply reflects back onto the predictive abilities of the observer, and doesn't say anything about the data itself.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMr.Al
Alphabet soup
Male


Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 5,380
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: The Assumption of Randomness [Re: deCypher]
    #8787492 - 08/17/08 06:50 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

Random = can't presently see big picture.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblederanger
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 6,840
Loc: off the wall
Re: The Assumption of Randomness [Re: mofo]
    #8787494 - 08/17/08 06:51 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

mofo said:
Or can it even be understood at any deeper level than it is already?




How could a microcosmic mind wrap itself around the macrocosm?

It seems if it could be somewhat understood, it would be more of a witnessing rather than an egoic understanding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The Assumption of Randomness [Re: deCypher]
    #8787504 - 08/17/08 06:53 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

I dont buy it.  I think there are things that are impossible to make a correct prediction, and there is no inherent difference between 'really' random and something we can never predict.  Creating a distinction between the two, which we can never know, is 'mental masturbation' (for lack of a better phrase).


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,227
Re: The Assumption of Randomness [Re: deranger]
    #8787507 - 08/17/08 06:54 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

If our brains were simple enough for us to easily understand, we would be so simple that we couldn't understand them.




And that's just the microcosm trying to understand the microcosm.  The macrocosm's a whole 'nother ball-game. :P


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female


Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: The Assumption of Randomness [Re: deCypher]
    #8787514 - 08/17/08 06:55 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

I think the point here is that atheism is just as irrational and faith-based as fervent religiosity, which I generally tend to agree with.


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,227
Re: The Assumption of Randomness [Re: DieCommie]
    #8787546 - 08/17/08 07:05 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
I dont buy it.  I think there are things that are impossible to make a correct prediction, and there is no inherent difference between 'really' random and something we can never predict.  Creating a distinction between the two, which we can never know, is 'mental masturbation' (for lack of a better phrase).




I agree that there's no difference between 'really' random and something we can't currently predict, but how do you propose to prove that there are things we will never be able to make a correct prediction about?

Quote:

Tchan909 said:
I think the point here is that atheism is just as irrational and faith-based as fervent religiosity, which I generally tend to agree with.




How did atheism jump into this thread? :grin: I do side with the OP that our current explanation of there being random events, with no further inquiry into their causes, is akin to proposing God as an explanation for some event--both are equally unprovable and ultimately uninteresting.  But if you're gonna say atheism is just as irrational as fervent religiosity, I have a bone to pick with ya.

Fervent atheism, as defined by the adamant belief that there is NO god, is just as unprovable as fervent theism (the belief that there IS a god.)  But to say that this places them on an equal footing is foolish, IMO.  I can hold the belief that invisible pink unicorns exist, but you would hardly call that belief as irrational as the belief that invisible pink unicorns DON'T exist.  Even though agnosticism is the only truly tenable logical position (tenable as it doesn't say anything at all :P), there is a certain force of probability that makes leaning towards one side or the other preferable to sitting on the middle of the fence-post.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female


Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: The Assumption of Randomness [Re: deCypher]
    #8787660 - 08/17/08 07:48 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

The Cypher said:
Fervent atheism, as defined by the adamant belief that there is NO god, is just as unprovable as fervent theism (the belief that there IS a god.)




Pretty much all I was trying to say.

Quote:

But to say that this places them on an equal footing is foolish, IMO.




It all depends on the individual, and what relationship he or she would like to have with reality.

Belief OR disbelief in the universe as a body or brain of a supreme being doesn't even tangentially involve rational thought - it's a matter of personal choice, personal perspective, what makes sense to you more than the other ideas.

So pink unicorns probably don't exist, but I find things such as the absolute/objective nature of consciousness to be a MUCH grayer area of knowledge than the presence on earth of magical fairy creatures.

I'd like to dance naked through the forests giving offerings to the Great Mother, myself, but I know people would look at me funny. I'm weak. :frown:


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.



Edited by Tchan909 (08/17/08 08:09 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The Assumption of Randomness [Re: deCypher]
    #8787796 - 08/17/08 08:39 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

The Cypher said: ...but how do you propose to prove that there are things we will never be able to make a correct prediction about




Im convinced we already did with science in the last century.  It makes technical and intuitive sense to me that there are things we cannot ever, no matter what the technology, predict.  I know alot of people arnt convinced thats the case, so I wont press the point.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,227
Re: The Assumption of Randomness [Re: DieCommie]
    #8788072 - 08/17/08 09:39 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

I'm just curious... what examples would you give from science that we can't predict?


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBoots
Disenchanted
Male

Registered: 07/25/07
Posts: 1,137
Loc: Northwood, Ohio, U.S.A.
Last seen: 9 years, 6 months
Re: The Assumption of Randomness [Re: deCypher]
    #8788127 - 08/17/08 09:49 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

Sort of like playing random songs on your iTunes. Operating within the laws of the computers given instructions, these songs will never be fully random, just as close to random as it can be.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The Assumption of Randomness [Re: deCypher]
    #8788173 - 08/17/08 10:00 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

The Cypher said:
I'm just curious... what examples would you give from science that we can't predict?




Well the uncertainty principle first and foremost.  You simply cannot predict where the particle will be when you look at it.  In the 60s a physicist named Bell showed there are no 'hidden variables' in a wave function meaning that a wave function completly describes all that can be said about a particle.  So we have the fact that with our current description we can only make probabilistic predictions of particle's behavior coupled with the idea that there are no other hidden variables.  This means when we have two wave functions in the exact same state and get different positions when observing them it must be truly random.  There are no hidden variables, so there is no hidden property of the wave function that we are ignorant to that is distinguishing the two.  They are exactly the same, and give different results.  Conclusion - probabilistic models are the best we can ever do with any technology.

If your familiar with the lingo, I subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation which is what most physicists subscribe to (but not all).

An example of this in 'real life' is radioactive decay.  When an atom decays is completely probabilistic.  According to the accepted theory, we can never predict when it will decay.  It will always be a probabilistic event.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: The Assumption of Randomness [Re: Boots]
    #8788186 - 08/17/08 10:02 PM (9 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Boots said:
Sort of like playing random songs on your iTunes. Operating within the laws of the computers given instructions, these songs will never be fully random, just as close to random as it can be.




I dont know about an iPod, but sometimes computers can generate a truly random number by using a random value for the 'seed' in a random number generator.  The random value for the seed can be gotten by the thermal fluctuations in the chip, which are random.

(My MP3 player certainly doesnt do this though, its shuffle is very pseudo random (it sucks))


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Randomness.
( 1 2 all )
Droz 2,253 27 03/23/05 09:45 PM
by Diploid
* Time travellers we are- random thoughts
( 1 2 all )
gettinjiggywithit 2,344 29 02/22/08 11:39 AM
by krin
* Explaining Karma (random ponderings)
( 1 2 all )
StickyWater 2,825 34 07/03/07 02:51 PM
by Apollyphelion
* Assumptions in the Mind
( 1 2 3 all )
Sinbad 3,008 44 02/26/05 07:55 AM
by Gomp
* assumptions vs uncertainty DoctorJ 1,061 16 03/14/05 04:58 PM
by DoctorJ
* false assumptions Deviate 852 4 08/07/05 11:30 PM
by Le_Canard
* Assumption elbisivni 1,123 14 05/30/07 11:07 AM
by Psychoactive1984
* WOW! Random Insight!
( 1 2 all )
MystikMushroom 1,565 26 05/15/06 01:12 PM
by BlueCoyote

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, CosmicJoke, Jokeshopbeard, DividedQuantum
2,017 topic views. 1 members, 3 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
FreeSpores.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2018 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.045 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 21 queries.