Lessons on Causality

Why does it matter? Are you arguing that things written in books are true because they are written in books?

Also, did you miss the part of my disagreeing with the math books?

So even if you do produce a book, I won’t give a crap.

I already proved infinity doesn’t exist here:

Therefore 0 does not exist.

So, we have the codependent pairs: 1-1, 2-2, 3-3,…, infinity - infinity.

Infinity - infinity is not defined and can be equal to anything, including infinity. So infinity cannot be a codependent pair with itself and can only be codependent on 0 because the only thing there can be infinite amount of is 0 and therefore infinity doesn’t exist because it depends on nonexistence in order to exist. An infinitely big box is the same as a box that doesn’t exist.

Infinity x 5 = undefined (or infinity/ doesn’t matter).
Infinity x infinity = undefined (or infinity/ doesn’t matter).
Infinity x 0 = 0. That is the only way it works because an infinity of nothing is still nothing.

Since infinity is dependent upon the existence of nothing in order to exist, then it does not exist.


Another way is to determine the opposite of infinity. Since 0 is smaller than the infinitesimally small, then 0 is the opposite of the infinity big. Therefore they are codependent pairs where one can’t exist without the other (just like true/false, yes/no, on/off, up/down, etc). Since we already know 0 does not exist, then we know infinity does not exist. Every other number has a codependent opposite that exists.

That’s the last nail in that coffin.

Anyone who doesn’t believe it now is simply being religious worshipping their infinity god :bow-blue:

Okay. I won’t waste any more time.

Seren, you seriously fail to understand what “infinity” means, and certainly are clueless concerning “infinity times infinity”.

You’ll be preaching Jesus to me next. :angry-soapbox:

You got it all wrong.
Pi isn’t random. It’s a computable number.
But the great majority of real numbers are uncomputable.

The same applies to bit strings.
Most bit strings are incompressible.

What this means, in plain terms, is that order is an exception.
It’s not the rule (the way shelterted people, such as you, think.)

You might want to look into algorithmic information theory. Very good stuff. Far deeper than anything you have to say. Most of what you say, anyways, is quite simply banal, and not only that, but also wrong.

The word “everything” only makes sense in relation to a finite set of elements. If there is no such a relation, no such a set, then it makes no sense.

The universe isn’t such a set. Personal experience, however, is. The word “universe” does include personal experience but it goes beyond it. It includes not only what is known (and what can be enumerated) but also what is unknown (what cannot be enumerated.)

You can say “everything from my personal experience” or “everything I know”.
These are legit statements.

You cannot, however, say “everything that exists” or “everything unnkown”.
Because there is no set that contains everything that exists and everything that is unknown.

You can point with your finger and say “this is a tree!” and “this is not a tree!” You cannot, however, point with your finger and say “this is universe!” and “this is not universe!” You might be able to say “this is part of the universe!” but then you wouldn’t be able to say “this is not part of the universe!”

I don’t need your respect, moron.

What you’re saying is common sense, I agree. And the reason it is common sense is precisely the reason why you should have assumed that I know and understand what you’re saying.

It’s not that I don’t understand your banalities.
It’s that you do not understand what I am saying.

You are quite simply CONFUSED by my statements.
And instead of trying to understand them you are simply projecting this confusion onto me.
It’s a classical tactic.

Change certainly isn’t infinity.
Change can be roughly defined as a difference between two successive states in time.
It is a special case of difference, which is a type of relation between two data points.

I understand that, moron. It is you who does not understand that just because you are searching for causes does not mean you will ever find them

You’re a broken record, my friend.

Yes, that’s why I am a solipsist – in your fantasies. Because you are hallucinating that I do not understand that just because I see no causes does not mean that further research won’t reveal them.

Whatever, my friend.

No, he won’t. He would agree with me.
He would agree you’re autistic.

Here’s a quote from him:

You are saying it’s up to me to defend the obvious (that there are events for which we see no cause) against what is not obvious (that there are causes even when we don’t see them.)

“I don’t know the God who created humans, therefore, humans are not created by God”.
You’re saying this is retarded.
Good stuff.

It appears me that not even dead philosophers can help me convince retards.

You know jackshit.

You’re routinely misinterpreting what I am saying.
This is why discussing anything with you is futile.

For example, I never said that becaues we don’t know something that it must not exist.
I simply said that any word that refers to something we don’t know is meaningless.
There’s a HUGE difference between the two statements.
But you simply don’t understand them.

You are posturing.
Your statements are quite simply wrong.
That’s the only thing that matters.
As for who’s more creative, I am pretty sure it’s not you.
You present no discoveries regarding the previously unknown.
You repeat what many other naive people repeat.

I do because you’re a believer.
The word God refers to a mechanism that governs the universe.
In other words, it refers to someone or something that determines the fate of everything that exists.
It’s the belief that the universe is ordered.
Does not matter if this mechanism is sentient or not.

I am not interested in what you think you are.
I am only interested in what you really are.
And you really are a believer.

That’s not what you are doing.
What you are doing is you are saying that causes exist even when we don’t see them.

You are quite simply CONFUSED.

My position is that you’re a retard . . . who is incapable of understanding other people’s positions.

What you say is my position is NOT my position.
That is your MISINTERPRETATION.

When you set out to explore reality, fuckface, what happens is you end up expanding your experience. In other words, you end up collecting evidence.

You are so stupid you cannot make a difference between collecting evidence and finding causes.

Fuckface, when you go out to collect some evidence the content of that evidence would be as it is independently from what you want it to be. Do you understand this? That means that there might not be any causal relations at all. Causal relations are CONTAINED WITHIN evidence. They are not transcendent or precedent. They are either there or they are not.

You are quite simply dumb.
That’s what you are.
It’s hilarious.

You are deciding IN ADVANCE what evidence you are going to collect.
You do not let evidence be what it is.
No, you decide that it must have certain form.
You decide that it must reveal causal relations.
THAT is solipsism, fuckface.

I am not against exploring reality, fuckface.
I am against DIRECTED exploration of reality.
That’s what Christians do.
They look for evidence that will prove the existence of something they have previously imagined.
That’s what you’re doing, fuckface.
You decide in advance there are causal relations and then you set out to find them.
Because they MUST be somewhere.
Just because you say so.

What you’re saying is that the universe must be the way you want it to be.
It is not allowed to be the way it wants to be.
No, everything must fit your expectations.

That IS solipsism, my friend.
To think that something MUST happen simply because you predicted it with 100% certainty.
You are so stupid you think that your predictions CREATE reality.

Fuckface, the content of our sensory experience is not dependent on our sensory experience. That is EXACTLY what I’ve been telling you all long. The content of sensory experience can be ANYTHING. In other words, sensory information can take ANY FORM. This means it can be ordered (compressible) or chaotic (incompressible.) It’s up to the universe. But our models of reality, which themselves are part of our sensory experience, are dependent upon certain parts of sensory experience. That is if they are grounded in reality. It is actually YOU who are saying that sensory experience must have a specific form i.e. that it must be ordered. You are the one saying that if the gravity on Earth has been 9.8 m/s^2 for who knows how many years in the past that it cannot suddenly change tommorrow. You ARE the solipsist, fuckface. You and also James who thinks that the universe flows i.e. that there are no discontinuties.

I am pretty sure I am whatever you say I am.
And you are the next great philosopher.
Alongside James S. Saint who is the only sane Homo Sapian.

You posture too much.

Strictly analytically, existence refers to one of the following things:

  1. to what was experienced in the past
  2. to predictions that we consider to be correct (or if you want to be strict, you can say to predictions that can be inferred from our past observations)

Non-existence, on the other hand, refers to predictions that we consider to be incorrect.

And that’s all these words mean.

Yes, it is.

All you’re reaffirming now is that you can’t listen. Incomprehensible to you does not impossible to everybody and everything. Computers can calculate what you, or I, cannot. Thus my point stands.

The universe includes all sets, all that is known, all that is unknown.

Good because you don’t have it, petulant child. It is a task to break through your solipsistic, autistic bubble though. I may as well do it, or, reality will pop your bubble for me, either way is fine.

I said that infinity is a process of change, not that change is infinite. This must be another of your reading mistakes.

And what does “in this sense” mean, context is required. You are quoting Russel out of context.

Humans obviously make mistakes in causation. Children, like you, believe Santa Clause is real. Thus they believe, falsely, that receiving presents on Christmas is caused by Santa Clause. That’s irrational, when premises are false. I’ve already covered this on the topic of “external versus internal causes”. You keep skipping over that, because you’re here to argue for the sake of arguing. You’ve already lost the point, long ago.

You’re the one bringing mysticism into the conversation as a strawman argument and red herring fallacy.

What I mentioned about gods and abrahamism is that most people, humanity, christians, jews, moslems, you, all associate “First Cause”, Causa Sui, to gods, for specific reason and cause. You obviously have no explanations nor deep knowledge about causality. Basically, people seek reasons/causes throughout life. When they/you cannot find them, then people use reasonability and rationality, estimation, guessing, prediction, and even mysticism. Solipsists like you go further.

You believe that “if I cannot know, then nobody must know!” This is flagrantly false and why you need to give up your points.

My argument, in response to you is, provide evidence, or even reasoning, for your hypothetical “uncaused event”. What do you mean, other than randomness, or what you personally cannot comprehend or explain? And just because something appears random to one person, doesn’t make it so to everybody else.

That’s humorous because your dead philosophers don’t side with you.

Another cop-out…

If this is what’s left of your arguments and rationality then this exchange must be at an end.

I am right, it is at an end.

Throw your tantrum, petulant child. Maybe you’ll learn after you calm down and realize the futility of your ignorance.

On the matter of unknown causes, there doesn’t need to be anything mystical, religious, or abrahamic about it. Science investigates unknown causes all the time. It’s an essential and common function of scientist. That you don’t know this fact either, discredits you even further.

Moron.

That’s subjective existence and I agree with you on that, but I mean objective existence. In order for existence to exist, it would have to come from a state of nonexistence and it will return to a nonexistent state. But nonexistence doesn’t mean a state of complete nothingness, but the polar opposite of what existence is.

“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” Tesla

Is PI random?

That’s a good question. Hmm… well it has no repeating pattern, but it is determined. So I guess it depends on how one defines random.

“No repeating pattern” is chaos/randomness.

Most humans are solipsistic and believe that if something is not seen (the darkside of the moon) then it must not, or cannot, exist. Thus most humanity define existence according to experience and knowledge. “If you don’t know something then it doesn’t exist.”

“If I close my eyes then all the bad things go away.” That’s about 95% of humanity.

That reminds me about hurricanes with female names being perceived as less dangerous. cnn.com/2016/09/01/health/fe … index.html

Therefore if we mandate all hurricane names be female, average IQ should rise over time :wink:

Anything x infinity is infinity according to math books but infinity itself is undefined as a specific quantity

The sequence of pi may be random given that it is irrational but pi itself is not random
Since it occupies a specific place on the number line just like every other number does

A circle has infinite sides, and so Pi represents a derivative function of infinity, hence why it cannot be calculated.

Define sides here and not your typical side.

You don’t know what a side is? Do you know what a triangle is?

Google it or ask your Kindergarten teacher.

Anything times an infinite is INFINITE, not “infinity”. Infinity is not a number, quantity, or place. Infinity is merely a vague idea of something unimaginably large.

And “random” means “lacking any predictable pattern”. So Pi, being predictable, is not random.

A side is where two points meet but a circle does not have any points

An infinite is not a number or quantity or place either but also just something unimaginably large

Just when you think the level of conversation cannot drop any lower…