It’s not up to me to refute it.
It’s up to you to prove it.
The principle of sufficient reason states that for every event B there must be an event A that caused it.
You have to prove this.
I wrote earlier:
Yes it is. You made a claim, so back it up.
I did. I already pointed out that it is necessarily, absolutely impossible to ever explain an uncaused event. You literally cannot even conceive such a thing in your mind, because to even conceive it means to conceive the “why” of it. Let’s assume an uncaused event just happens for no reason, let’s call it X. So you say “X happened”. What does that mean? Well what is X? You might try to tell me what X is, but it won’t make any sense without reasons why X is X rather than Y or Z or anything else.
A random unicorn pops into existence. Why? No reason, it just did. Well, why a unicorn rather than a giraffe? Um, no reason, according to you. Just because. Because why? Because nothing.
Yeah, that is the sort of “reasoning” you are advocating here. It is notable that despite advocating the total death of your mind, you aren’t actually willing to trace out the supposed logic of that, even after you make the claim. You dodge it with “I don’t need to defend what I say” nonsense. Which is good to see, because it means that you actually know what you are saying is bullshit.
To speak about what something is, is already necessarily to speak about why it is that rather than something else. Which is, again, necessarily, able to speak about the reasons why it is that. The reason for something is the thing itself, and nothing besides. That is what it means to “be something”.
An uncaused event is simply an event for which we see no cause.
That’s all it is.
Not true.
No. An uncaused event is an event for which we see no “why”.
That’s a very strange way of thinking.
Suppose I observed a red apple.
According to you, it would make no sense for me to tell you that I observed a red apple (instead of a green one) without explaining to you what caused this observation.
And what exactly is the problem?
You keep asking “why?” when there is no “why”.
I am not saying an uncaused event is caused by “nothing”.
I am saying that an uncaused event has no cause – it is not caused at all.
You have a problem accepting that reality does not function according to our expectations.
When there is no pattern in information, there is simply no pattern in information.
You cam try to acquire more information with the hope that a pattern will emerge.
But how long will you keep doing this?
How much information do you have to collect before you can say “it’s enough, let’s see what we’ve got”?
You must stop collecting evidence at some point.
You appear to think that it’s impossible to recognize patterns in data (this impossibility is what you call “the death of mind”) unless this data has been generated by some hidden mechanism according to some predetermined set of rules.
Which is non-sense.
I can see causal relations on my computer monitor.
And my computer monitor is just a bunch of pixels – basically, tiny lightbulbs that emit light of certain color.
These are immovable – they are fixed in place – and yet I can perceive causal relations.
They are independent from each other – they have no effect on each other – and yet I can perceive causal relations.
A bunch of pixels of uniform color on my monitor is interpreted as a ball that is moving in certain direction at certain speed.
When it hits one of the edges of my monitor, the ball changes its direction of movement.
In other words, “the edge” causes “the ball” to change the direction of movement.
That’s an example of causal relation that is interpreted by a brain.
Even if I didn’t know that my computer has been programmed to function in this manner, I’d still perceive causal relations.
You see . . . no need for hidden mechanisms to perceive causal relations.
You really confuse reality itself with what you’re able to see of reality?
Damn man. I got nothin for you.
I am simply telling you that we can perceive causal relations even when there is no evidence of hidden mechanism underlying our observations.
It is your stance that in the absence of this hidden mechanism (the so-called “absolute truth” or simply God) there can be no perception of causal relations.
That reason cannot exist (or function) without it.
I am simply telling you that it can.
Our judgment of what is real is based entirely on what we are able to see.
However, I am pretty sure that in your case your judgments are based on more than what you’re able to see.
I am, of course, speaking of imaginations.
Imaginations such as the idea that every event has a cause (which really amounts to saying that events in the universe unfold according to a predetermined set of rules that we refer to as “absolute truth”.)
You are taking things too literally.
The way parrots do.
Since parrots only understand conclusions and not what stands behind conclusions.
They have no choice but to interpret things too literally.
You think that your model of reality is reality itself.
You think that the requirements of your model of reality are the requirements of reality itself.
Not to mention the fact that causality is not a requirement for a model of reality.
Certain scientific fields have no notion of causality whatsoever.
And yet they work.
There may be events that happen in nature for which there is no rational explanation and it may be that there is none or that the explanation is not yet know
But our perception and understanding of the natural world is limited so satisfactory explanations cannot always be provided. Reality does not always conform
to our expectation of it and so it is a mistake upon our part in expecting that it must. Therefore when it occurs we should just acknowledge it rather than try
to fill the gap in our knowledge. Our natural tendency to wish to know everything cannot be satisfied sometimes ignorance has to be accepted unsatisfying as
this may be. Though not knowing is actually more interesting than knowing even if it does not necessarily seem so. For if we knew everything it would be less
so and so we should be grateful there is a limitation to our knowledge
They are attached to certain ways we model reality.
Indeed, they are so attached they are unwilling to model reality unless it can be modelled precisely that way.
The above cretin is attached to the idea of causality.
He wants to model reality in such a way such that every event has a cause.
He cannot accept that some events simply have no cause.
No, every event must have a cause.
Simply because Void (of Reason) likes it that way.
Because he finds it more aesthetically pleasant that way.
They choose the form of their models in advance.
Long before they take a look at the evidence.
They do not start with the evidence.
They start with the way they want to model reality and then they try to make evidence fit into it.
Like JSS and his attachment to locality.
Can’t accept action at a distance. All action must be local.
Not because that’s what evidence suggests – there’s more to reality than evidence.
But because of “logic” i.e. because he likes it that way.
It’s more organized that way.
An interesting read:
Bertrand Russell - On the Notion of Cause
But he’s an analytic philosopher.
What does he know?
Look what he says:
Did he just say that determinism, interaction and affectance are all purely logical?
Any reliable model has to be built upon evidence and nothing else. Philosophical interpretations are not necessarily evidence based so should be avoided
Even ones that are evidence based such as materialism for example should be avoided because they could be wrong as philosophy is not science. Science
is only interested in the study of observable phenomena. It has nothing to say about it beyond its physical properties. Materialism is ontology not science
A rather blanket presumption and accusation. Where is your evidence?
Void_X_Zero
Wouldn’t that be like saying that the reason for the crash which was caused by the drunk which killed the little boy in the other car was the crash itself?
There was nothing which caused that crash? Nothing, which by reaching back in time and seeing a number of dynamics at play like an ad continuum could be seen as bringing that crash into existence?
The crash was the cause of the crash?
Add up every single thing that led to the crash, including the drinking and the two drivers and their decision trees and the road and the cars and the speed limits, and you will get the event itself (the crash).
It doesn’t reduce to one thing, like the drinking. The causality is everything that had to come together in just the right way to cause the event. If the other driver had made different decisions and hadn’t been driving at that place and time, then he wouldn’t have been hit by the drunk, for example.
The sum total of all reasons for the event is the event itself. Ontologically speaking.
You are a mystic.
Not a rational person.
Causal relations do not precede events.
Rather, they succeed them.
That’s basically saying that models of reality do not precede sensations.
Rather, they succeed them.
Sensations are precedant.
We can only get so high. Ask anybody who takes drugs. It plateaus after a while.
Certain objects can cause other objects to move (i.e. change their position in space) without there being a contact between them (i.e. there is no bumping.)
For example, when magnets interact with metal, either attracting or repelling it, they do so from a distance.
There is no contact between them.
Of course, what you’re going to say is that this is merely an appearance and that what’s going on behind the scenes is that the magnet is indirectly bumping into the metal.
For example, you might say that the magnet only has an effect – a direct effect – on the adjacent particles that are invisible to the naked eye. When affected, these particles propagate the affect to the adjacent particles which then propagate the affect to particles that are adjacent to them and so on. Eventually, the metal becomes affected, moving either towards or away from the magnet.
Which would miss the point.
My point being that we can perceive causality even when there is no evidence for, and even so much as assumption of, the existence of particles that propagate the effect from the magnet to the metal.
In order to perceive causality it’s enough to observe that every time we place a magnet at a certain distance from a piece of metal, the piece of metal changes its position.
No bumping whatsoever.
The magnet does not bump into the piece of metal, and yet, it changes one of its properties, namely, its position in space.
When your desire is too strong it has no choice but to overpower your perception. This is because perception poses a risk to satiating your desire. What if it turns out that you cannot satiate your desire? What if it turns out that your goal is unrealistic? Well, you would have to give up on it then. But when your desire is too strong, you don’t want to allow that. You don’t want to so much as permit that possibility. So the effort to perceive reality as it is is sidelined and a blind conviction is put in its place.
You guys crave power so much that you’d rather pretend you have it or that you will have it rather than admit that you don’t have it and that you will never have it.
In your case – and by you I mean you and Jakoff and Sauwelios and the rest of the VO crew – this manifests as a quest for an all-encompassing model of reality that will allow you to predict pretty much all of reality.
You are not interested in genuine power.
You are interested in the feeling of power.
Genuine power is acquired over a long period of time spanning multiple generations. It’s a very slow and meticulous process. In other words, it’s acquired bit by bit. You have no patience for this – you don’t want to wait for so long – so you simply end up deluding yourself because there is no other option.
Here’s a challenge for you I am sure you will find boring.
Answer these questions:
- What exactly is a thing?
- Is it perhaps a three-dimensional object? If so, what exactly is a three-dimensional object?
- Is it possible for it to be something simpler? such as two- or even one-dimensional object? If so, what exactly is a two- or one-dimensional object?
- What does it mean for a thing to bump into another thing?
- Does it involve the concept of motion? If so, what exactly is motion?
These are questions that require some effort.
And they are modest.
You won’t become a philosopher-king by answering them.
So perhaps, for you, there isn’t much incentive in answering them.
But I do think they are interesting.
And relevant, since they resolve a lot of confusions.
You may as well ask what a being, or even existence, is.
Just to make sure you know what you’re talking about.
But I am pretty sure you won’t.
Too analytical, too boring, too dry, too exhausting . . .
You are no Dionysian.
You are empty inside, you are hollow.
No real feelings.
No sensations.
Only words.
Empty meaningless words.
Magnetic lines of force do exist. Sorry to spoil your fun.
There is no “spooky action at a distance”, ever. For influence to occur, contact of some sort must occur. This is logic 101.
You are missing the point. Again.
And you will miss it. Again and again.
The point is that we can perceive one thing causing some kind of change in another thing even when we do not perceive a direct or indirect contact between the two of them.
You keep ignoring this point over and over again.
The causal relation between magnets and metals exists regardless of whether there are magnetic lines of force or not.
Reality does not function according to our expectations.
If there is no contact between a cause and an effect then there simply is no contact between them.
You don’t get to decide how reality works.
That’s not logic.
That’s you expecting the world to function according to your expectations.
Fixed sent me this message titled “fragment of traces of intelligence suspected”.
And yet, noone knows what “people value reality in terms of their selfvaluing” means.
What does it mean for someone to “value reality”?
We do not value reality.
We describe it.
To describe reality is to predict that if we do X at some point in time that Y will happen.
We also do not describe reality in terms of our selfvaluing.
Rather, we describe it based on our vantage point (or viewpoint) which is just a name for our personal experience (i.e. our observations from the past) coupled with our way of thinking.
Another PM:
Apparently, I’ve been plagiarizing Jakoff’s phifoolosophy.
The good = love.
Good love = sex
sex = the best.
For people not getting there there is always MagnusJ and his abusecrew who moderate here.
Yech.
women arent weak.