GENIUS FORUMS

Change is cause and effect. The cause for a given effect is an effect of a previous cause and that effect is a cause for another effect (effect-cause and cause-effect). This goes on creating more and more. It was, it is, and it will always be, this can be disputed with no resolve. Moreover, a cause is a product of a seemingly infinite amount of effects. These sequences go on and on...This is life, plus a WHOLE lot more. In order for one to understand something, one needs to be able to recreate it over and over again. So, I guess it goes something like this: observe, notice patterns, study the cause and effect, and finally be able to recreate the studied effect, is this understanding? Can one understand change without being able to recreate it?

I think it is understanding in a sense. I find myself continually replaying events that have already happened, analyzing, finding something new each time, which gets me closer to understanding the underlying cause or principle. As I write this I have a game of chess going on - it is near the end and I am slightly ahead. It is parallel to your idea....in the beginning there was a cause, which inspired a whole range of possible effects, then one was chosen, creating another cause-and-effect....so, hypothetically, I could go back and look at a move (be it mistake or whatever) that I made, contemplating all the possible causes/actions (which, at a certain point in the game, there could be a very large number)....thus seeing the correct choice of action and changing/becoming better for the next game I play.

Too similar for comfort, ill-rod.

thus seeing the correct choice of action and changing/becoming better for the next game I play.

Why interpret life as a game? How do you know you've chosen the right action, when the selection is so unlimited?

If you are who I think you are, you have the wrong idea...Look who's jumping to conclusions?

1ntel wrote:Why interpret life as a game? How do you know you've chosen the right action, when the selection is so unlimited?

If you are who I think you are, you have the wrong idea...Look who's jumping to conclusions?

first of all, I'm not who you think I am.

Second I wasn't interpreting life as merely a game - it isn't candyland. Chess does have many parallels in life. In different situations, there will be a different number of possible selections of actions, therefore determining the amount of contemplation that has to go into finding the best possible action in that specific context. There is no perfect action, but after enough reflection, one can most likely find the best suited one.

Yes, I agree, your response holds a lot of merit. At this moment, I've got a bundle of homework and can't be bothered to write a meaningful response. I'm not quite sure why I started this thread in the first place(it was late), but I'm sure it will come to me and when it does I'll login and post it!

first of all, I'm not who you think I am.

Very well, please accept my apologies. Your username, number of posts, and the content of those posts, spoke otherwise. I suppose we're very similar minded. Anyways, it doesn't matter. Be my guest and feel free to post whenever you'd like, I'll respond within a weeks time, very busy.

Regards.

What about Murphy's law? Or Christian Bovee:"The method of the enterprising is to plan with audacity, execute with vigor, to sketch out the map of possiblities, and then to treat them as probabilities."

OR- my own experience a few days ago driving home in the hills. Just as I caught up with the first slowpoke, he turned off Bridge hill road so I wouldnt have to eat his dust on the gravel for the next 7 miles. Then just as I caught up with another on rte 95, he pulled onto the shoulder to let me pass. then the next three vehicles, just as I caught up with them, all turned off.

What did this good luck cost me?
a flat.

your example is good, definitely reflective of a concept, but how does it relate to this thread? The idea of practically infinite possibilities and knowing which one to choose....lots of times choosing the wrong one, looking back and understanding. foresight and prudence in life. However, digression is fine in my opinion, so let's talk about your example...It's obviously a funny little karma story, yet there are times where everything seems to go good/bad; you had both in the same context. So, I guess the concept of balance in life. Umm....two scientists performed an experiment a while back where they sent out radiation waves, and at the instant they sent them out, the waves were met with inward waves from the universe. I forgot most of the details, but as you can see, the universe acts as an ubiquitous mediator in a sense.

We need facts, things which appear true beyond any doubt and of which cannot be dis-proven, no matter. Something which can be repeated over and over with predictable results (Murphy's Law and Karma go out the window). Something which doesn't change when put under different circumstances, it stays the same. Facts.

How do we logically understand this.

Oh.

Is that what it is...

1ntel wrote:Change is cause and effect. The cause for a given effect is an effect of a previous cause and that effect is a cause for another effect (effect-cause and cause-effect). This goes on creating more and more. It was, it is, and it will always be, this can be disputed with no resolve. Moreover, a cause is a product of a seemingly infinite amount of effects. These sequences go on and on...This is life, plus a WHOLE lot more. In order for one to understand something, one needs to be able to recreate it over and over again. So, I guess it goes something like this: observe, notice patterns, study the cause and effect, and finally be able to recreate the studied effect, is this understanding? Can one understand change without being able to recreate it?

Everything is cause, and effect, plus some causes have random results. (See spooky science) http://whyfiles.org/shorties/133quantum_leap/

Can one understand change without being able to recreate it?

We can compare different types of cause, and effect. We can calculate the difference between two different events. eg..

You cook some chicken legs in the oven for 15 minutes, and they come out pink. The next day you cook some chicken legs in the oven for 1hr 30minutes and they come out black. The next day, you buy some turkey legs, cook them for 45 minutes, and they are perfect.

When we compare different cause, and effects we get all of the tweens. So we can understand change very well. We even get some idea of the impossible to recreate events, which we would call our best guess.

Everything is cause, and effect, plus some causes have random results.

Just to be picky, the truth of what you say here, depends on what you infer by the phrase "random results".

If everything "is cause" (and, if observed, an effect), then every part of everything is causal, as it is. However this then means that random causal "outcomes" cannot occur. That some of what we observe may appear random at the sub-atomic level, does not mean it is in fact random. That scientists often seem to do so, is based on the false idea that they are analysing something finite.

From the link

It takes two to tangle
A subatomic particle can spin clockwise or counter clockwise. Or, if it is cut off from the environment, a particle can stay in limbo -- going clockwise and counter clockwise at once. Only when the particle is measured or observed does it pick a direction and stick with it.

This just means the tools of observation are also a cause.

It is not possible for a sub-atomic particle to be "cut off from its environment", though if it is segregated from an environment with non-synchronistic patterns of causal interference to one with synchronistic external patterns (essentially patterns that are opposite in causal nature, to the external shell of the particle), then it may indeed go "clockwise and counter clockwise at once".

===============================================================

That was all I was going to say, but it got me thinking of my pet topic. The rest of this post is just me writing to aid my thinking (rather brilliantly) about reality.


The only causal "things" that are truly finite are the two individual and opposite fundamental causes. Everything else is infinite (depending on how one defines infinity).

The two fundamental causes are finite because they are the only thing that possibly can be finite, otherwise they individually would be all there is. To be truly completely infinite, to be completely unbounded, means to be all that there can possibly be. To be all that could possibly be would mean that this non-thing had no parts, without parts there could be no differentiation, without differentiation there could not be things. Therefore the fundamental reality is of the process of a causal duality. That is all that is needed to create and power the universe.

The only possibility for a fundamental, or initial, or first order boundary on something that would otherwise be all there is, is simply that "as Cause A is not Cause B, then these causes are bounded, made finite, and caused by, each other". The fundamental causes are otherwise infinite, and by this I mean they will always be what they are - they will never cease being pure causal agents, with the same constant causal action.

I suspect these fundamental forces are Instantaneous time and Static time, but one could also call them the Expansionary force and Contracting Force, or just Yin and Yang (lol, the religious, those whose minds are alloyed with herd judgementalism, probably would use "Good and Evil", representing the creator and the destroyer).

Of course all effects are finite, but effects are not really real. Effects are always an imaginary mental totalisation of certain repeated and observable patterns of existence.

Here is my online dictionary definition of the word random:
"Lacking any definite plan or order or purpose; governed by or depending on chance".

The first part of this applies to Every Thing. Every Thing lacks any definite plan or order or purpose. Things exist because of causal order, yes, but that order is not definite, it is dependant on what is occurring around that thing. If it was definite then it would have an intrinsic inherent existence. Inherent existence can only apply to that which is fundamental, and no formed observable thing is fundamental. Note though that how a particular existing order changes is definite - "what occurs cannot not occur".

On the other hand as the entirety of that which Every Thing consists of, is the fundamental causes and nothing else, then one could also say that everything, The Totality, has an intrinsic permanent existence.

All this creates a kind of illusionary paradox. We assume that finite things arise from something infinite, to which we apply the name The Totality, whereas it is actually the other way around, infinite things arise from a finite base. The Totality which is infinite is caused by that which is finite. Infinity is an outcome of finiteness.

At the fundamental level, finiteness must equate to 'bounded infinity'. In not being Cause B, Cause A has eternal unchanging existence, it becomes timeless, thus infinite in the manner we humans tend to emotionalise the concept of infinity, "something being what it is forever".

Cause A and Cause B, when conceptualised as a combination, however, eternally change. Cause A and Cause B, are eternal causes, and what this means is that all their causal activity is accumulative, so they change in a totalised sense.

Their enteral causal action is opposite to each other - one causes growth and the other causes contraction. For the sake of explanation only, which requires reference to spatial concepts, lets imagine the forces expand or contract 1% per year. Note the contraction of something big produces a different effect to the contraction of something small. 1% of 1000 cubic metres will be 10 cubic metres lost, whereas 1% of 100 cubic metres will only be 1 cubic meter loss. The same idea applies to the two forces as if all their action over time was sumable, as if one could freeze the universe and calculate Cause A is that (big) size and Cause B is that (small) size. This means there is a "fundamental causal action" relationship, that creates a universal constant, creates a consistent ratio of change. Einstein's universal constant may be valid.

The causal action that occurred 10000 trillion years or one second ago is still in existence, it is just not on the same spatial plane. As a unit, at any instant of time, the fundamental causes are relative to one another, but in the next moment that relativity configuration will have been added/subtracted to and will now have a different spatial relativity ratio - but importantly the prior relativity configuration will have remained in place (this is actually what the a scientists we are referring to above are observing).

Causal action is constantly overlapping. Space and flowing time are not fundamental, they are caused.

What merges into one, separates into two. Personally, I think space and time is one thing, imagined as two. Ohh, that’s right so does Einstein. Space is the effect and (flowing) time is the cause. The cause of flowing time is the two fundamental dualities. The cause of the fundamental duality is each other.

Space and time are observable things, we can conceptualise them, we don't have to see them, as we can observe what they do, and we can imagine them as polarised entities (infinity-nothing, instantaneous-static). Ultimately this means that even they can be separated into parts. This is a requirement for observation. All visual observations must alter in some minute way, what is being observed (mostly just small changes to light emanating from the object). Space and time are however analytical observations, logical ones. The parts of analytical observations are the concepts of true and false. Logic begins with and is really only about absolute True and False dualities, which become complex logic as additional logical conditions (dualistic relativities) are added, and the logic becomes one of various layered dualities (which we call logic, maths and rationality). The universe essentially works the same way.

If everything "is cause" (and, if observed, an effect), then every part of everything is causal, as it is. However this then means that random causal "outcomes" cannot occur. That some of what we observe may appear random at the sub-atomic level, does not mean it is in fact random. That scientists often seem to do so, is based on the false idea that they are analysing something finite.

The random causal event was the direction of the spin. You are forgetting that cause, and effect involve forces to be applied. There was no force applied to the particle apart from observation. The spin happened as though it were a form of unaided perpetual motion. Unaided Perpetual motion requires no cause to create an effect, and that is what is required to create the universe. The direction of spin was without force, or energy. It could have gone either way.

Cause, and effect should be renamed force, and effect to remove this ambuguity. Else we are playing word games with the limited vocabulary of the human brain.

Also.. if we could self observe our own particles to make them do something different.. you have sentience.