reply to post by pepsi78
Unknown effect, not unknown element, the element is known but will cause a unknown effect out of the 3 elements that are on the table for
Not entirely so. Whatever effect happens by whichever cause can still be discerned can it not? From your first example in randomness, you listed these
three thing's as being a cat, a window, and the wind. Out of those three causes happening in sequence, the ball bounced accordingly in a different
way than it would if normally drop from straight above. Those three causes happening in order are still causes towards the end effect, not random
occurrences because you wish them so.
For every cause there is an effect, for every effect there is a cause. This holds true in everything unless you can show it false for something. Mind
you, chance is not an excuse because chance is nothing more than a term indicating extant causes not recognized or perceived.
So by sticking your hand in the fan it will outcome to what?
The fan will break down , the fan will stop, the fan will cut off your finger, and lets just say it's not how powerfull the fan is, it's how you put
your hand in the fan, and since you do not have microscopic precision you will get a random effect out of 3 things, it's one of those 3. Now if
something predictable would hit the spining fan you would know the outcome having time to calculate how and where it would hit knowing what is going
Let's delve a little more deeper in that scenario. You list possible effects from possible causes, but if we're going to be utterly honest in our
argument here we have to consider the variables of those causes and their effects.
If the fan is weak and dull it will stop
if the fan is weak and sharp it will cut slightly
if the fan is powerful but dull then it will mangle and break the hand before stopping
if the fan is powerful and sharp it will cleanly cut off
Now, as we all know or SHOULD know as common sense, no matter which variable encountered, it will only have one cause and one effect. You can say
well, what if till your blue in the face and scream I love god and he loves me, but only ONE of those variables in your argument can happen at one
given moment. All variables are not going to happen all at once, that's illogical and stupid to even attempt that line of reasoning.
Can you predict in a game of chess who will win, or better close your eyes and throw something and see where it lands.
This is why I said you disregard things. Your disregarding that I said thing can be predictable GIVEN enough or all of the variables. Yet, when we're
talking chess and it's predictability your disregarding the cause and effects latent in the game itself. While you have no idea what the people
playing the game are thinking (this would be the required variable to predict the game's outcome by the way), just because you don't have that
variable doesn't mean it's chance or unpredictable. Lack of knowing doesn't mean it's chance. When you close your eyes and throw something, you
can guess based on the variable of how hard you throw and in which direction you throw, but without the total variables given you can't predict with
accuracy the location where that something will land. That still doesn't make it chance, it means you don't know.
Everything random is predifined so I don't get what you are trying to say.
Random is not an unknown element is just a unpredictable effect that exists in reality and it's trigered by a singluarity.
This is where the hypocrisy comes into play. You can't have a predefined randomness as it defeats the purpose of what randomness is. Nor can you
change definitions and meanings to further a hypocritical argument.
Things that you can not predict are random, random is not new.
In other words without influence one thing will do what is supose to do "out of many that it can do" With an influence of a singularity it will do
one other thing out of many things that it can do depending on how it's influenced.
Just because the causes are unknown leading to an inability to predict a final effect does not make the process one of randomness, that is what is
called faulty logic.
I think you are mistaking random with an original effect that does not exist yet, like a random event that will happen that does not exist
You are confusing random effects with unknown elements that produce random effects. Random does not focus on the element but on what it will produce
out of the known elements.
Your wrong in your reasoning. As stated previously, an unknown cause does not make a random future effect. Even if the initial cause is known but down
the line of sequential events one of the effects leading to a new cause that would eventually lead to a final effect is lost, still does not make the
If you know all the elements involved and how they interact, then there is no randomness. I really don't understand why your arguing with
hypocrisies, or are you unaware that you are doing so?
As for the unknown.
The mistery is not the elements but what elements it will produce out of 3 elements for example. Because it's unpredictable it's original, it's new
only in this view, the elements are not new. Can you get down on it and calculate it and then say for sure, I know the outcome? I would say no. To me
that is special. If you can stand by this in a fraction of a second as it happens"as it is decided" by who? by mister random of course. Then you
would be able to say, I was there, I saw it tick.
In the case of your fan argument, only one thing can and will occur, not all three variables at once. There will only be one cause leading to one
effect, not a possibility of this cause leading to that effect or that cause leading to this effect. The universe doesn't work on maybe's, it works
by a set law of physics.
In this case the cat did produce a random effect but from known elements.
The cat did not produce a random effect. Your disregarding the cat opening the window leading to the wind blowing the ball while disregarding the
processes involved that allow for the wind to blow. The cat didn't randomly bump into the window, it leaned against that window because it wanted to
get warmed up by the sun, just like any typical cat.
[edit on 21-9-2009 by sirnex]