GENIUS FORUMS

Absolute truths are logical entities. Scientific truths are empirical entities. None of this matters anyway. Causality is one of the most important tools in the box when it comes to deconstructing yourself. The necessity of absolutes follow in its wake. That's all that matters. The point is not to ...

As such, empirical evidence can never constitute an absolute and so scientific causality or acausality cannot be absolute. Ok. It's also fair to say the mathematics support the acausality hypothesise.But again that could just be be human,all too human. That's exactly what it is. The seeming acausal...

DQ/KS :"Causality is like a 'theory of everything' because space goat dependent arising is absolutlely true and thus must be defended at all costs.When pressed on this-'well it's only a stepping stone' " Larkin : "Nargajuna says you're wrong David/Kevin" I'm not so sure about th...

Actually I saw this on an episode of Horizon a couple of weeks ago which was about unconscious processes and their role in decision making. I might as well describe some of the other experiments and musings by butchering a PM I sent to someone about it, as the last one is especially relevant: I was ...

Jung was big on the whole syncronicty buisness.It mostly seems like woo-woo to me-confirmation bias,Barnum effect. Have a look into implicit memory and particulary, priming . I saw an experiment recently where a person is escorted to an interview room via a lift. The experimenter asks them to hold ...

DQ/KS :"Causality is like a 'theory of everything' because space goat dependent arising is absolutlely true and thus must be defended at all costs.When pressed on this-'well it's only a stepping stone' " Larkin : "Nargajuna says you're wrong David/Kevin" I'm not so sure about th...

Dave, Are there other topics that tend to be distracting? I know I kind of groaned when the Quantum Mechanics/Causality thing came up recently. "Oh no, not again!" I guess I did that. Thing is, until recently, I've been away for a number of years and I had some things to get off my chest o...

Davetoast:"QM shows non-determinsim but this just points to there being no absolute truths" I'm sure I've misrepresented all of your positions to some extent and for that I apologise.But thats how it comes accross to me. Yep, you got me almost as wrong as possible. It doesn't prove non-de...

I'd like to suggest an empirical test. Direct your daily interest towards guessing the lottery numbers such that this task occupies your every sleeping/waking thought. Twice a week, give me the numbers you think are going to come up and as soon as I win a few times we will have proven precognition. :)

Because he has a relatively massive interwebs audience and all his actions are allegedly the result of philosophical convictions, convictions of alleged logic. It depends on what you're looking for I suppose. What is an interesting subject? What is a useful subject? They're two completely different ...

We're simply striving to get back some focus and quality of discussion to the place which David and I agree has been significantly lost over the last few months. Dan, the quality and focus of this board has ALWAYS relied on the ongoing contribution of the admins. It's not a chicken/egg thing. If tr...

It's a bad idea. Complete freedom of speech is a laudable ideal but humans tend to abuse laudable ideals. A few extra rules and a few bans accordingly would do the required and recognise the limitations of the interwebs. That's an option, but on what basis would anyone be banned? No bannable offens...

Thinking about it can provide the thinker the means to eventually realise the emptiness of absolutes. Kind of like the koans and banging your head against the wall you spoke about the other day.

"LOL" is your answer? Okay, fair enough. There's nothing wrong with "lol." It doesn't bother me, just in case you hoped it would. That's not what I meant. I thought it was a joke. The lol was because, scientifically, you know exactly what my answer would be. Of course, philosoph...

Exactly, Dave. "Acausality" in a temporal, empirical sense has always and must always have application - it's inevitable because there's always a limit to what is observable and explicable; that limit may be contingent, it may be final, we'll never be truly sure about that. But this appli...

Unidian wrote:Are you going to answer the question or not?

Lol.

Look man, we're supposed to be discussing supposed acausality at the quantum level. You asserted that this is the case. I've argued that it's not. And now you seem to have totally accepted what I've said, despite reams of past disagreement, to the end of getting me to cast aspersions at someone else...

But in that case, Dave, wouldn't asserting "causality" of the quantum mechanical be a kind of meaningless proclamation, since "causal/acausal" in the ultimate sense is not a question we can ask of empirical reality? Wouldn't it simply be an ontological claim which really says no...

Exactly, Dave. "Acausality" in a temporal, empirical sense has always and must always have application - it's inevitable because there's always a limit to what is observable and explicable; that limit may be contingent, it may be final, we'll never be truly sure about that. But this appli...

But in that case, Dave, wouldn't asserting "causality" of the quantum mechanical be a kind of meaningless proclamation, since "causal/acausal" in the ultimate sense is not a question we can ask of empirical reality? Wouldn't it simply be an ontological claim which really says no...

It's a bad idea. Complete freedom of speech is a laudable ideal but humans tend to abuse laudable ideals. A few extra rules and a few bans accordingly would do the required and recognise the limitations of the interwebs.

As you say, that is what people typically mean by 'acausality', but clearly it's not acausal and we have just set it up so that we're not privvy to the specific cause of the specific result, which had very specific causes. Likewise, we are not privvy to the specific causes of measurables in the quan...

Have a look here for a precis and start here and work your way through the philosophy series for a better idea.

Anyway, random things can easily have a predictable result. Generate a random number between 1 and 100. Do that a thousand times. Then average all the random numbers together. The result will be 50, or something quite close. :-) this doesn't refute causality No, but it does refute the idea that aca...

Why? I see no problem with a functionally deterministic "classical" world emerging at the macroscopic level from an acausal quantum substrate. That's not really what I wanted to discuss as it can only ever be a matter of opinion, as previously stated. However, while we're venturing opinio...