Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the human

This group answer, it seems, would, show its heart’s center of haughty contemptuousness to the group, & repine in the planetary intellectual anarchy which claims the anarchy is merely a “sideline” of its main road, which, however, is only dreamed to exist. What more does justice say than: this city, where I live, is the center of the cosmos?

Ah, the pseudo-serious philosopher! :wink:

The group says, the answer given is gravely serious. One should learn to speak simply, and actively avoid being complicated. Ergo, what is written “What more does justice say than: this city, where I live, is the center of the cosmos?” lets the essence of the issue be seen.

One can explicate thusly: All human beings, individuals, are part of groups. The groups have peculiar patterns of life. Each favors their own. No way has been shown out of this, especially considering the failure to universalize the Western notion of reason, as a god or way to divine god’s will.

Okay, so how does “one” and/or “the group” connect the dots between that and this:

Only this time [to placate me] bring these points down out of the scholastic clouds and connect them to an existential context out in the world of conflicting goods.

A context most here are likely to be familiar with.

The word “scholastic” and “existential” are bosh talk, indicating a presupposed academic floating above the thinking. It’s just a way the group learned to attack in a classroom. Boring.

What is the specific difficulty? The answer is exceedingly lazy.

“On my plate is a pile of food. It is illogical to take a bite unless I can stuff it all in my face at once.”

I’ll be waiting for your Nobel prize

Almost everything some members of the group write has the form: I don’t get it, therefore it must be nonsense. But, the “I don’t get it” never occurs to them, they lack the self insight. Instead: what is conscience is only: it is nonsense.

No, I don’t think it’s either existential nor a contraption, but the opposite of. It’s the non-existence of a contraption. It’s complete mindlessness and complete lack of purpose. It’s not a tool to employ mindlessness, but the absence of tools.

True, but the condition of purposelessness is the same for each unique activity.

I’m not sure the rule of “no rules” is itself a rule if no thought is ever given to the establishment of such a rule. One who lives without rules never considers whether there should be rules.

I’ve no idea what dasein is.

I have a different comment this time around. I’m inclined to believe that free will exists to the extent that it’s only restrained by probability of outcome instead of “set-in-stone” determination. The “will” is a desire that is manufactured of what exists “now” as a feedback in influencing (but not determining) the outcome of what will exist in the future.

I think there is a will and I think it has certain freedoms since nothing is 100% determined. The will is an illusion to the extent that it’s a product of the stuff in this universe instead of being something abstractly and objectively real (objectively real is an oxymoron anyway).

I think the fact that everything is probabilistic rather than deterministic precludes existence of laws. I’m not even sure duality itself, which is the foundation of everything, is even a law outside of this universe. Maybe there could be triality universes and that would be the law of the land, so to speak. What we call “laws” are really “consistently observed random outcomes”.

That’s a darn good answer, but it still seems there is a difference between the purposeful and purposeless. Can we be purposeful for a purposeless reason? Why do we want to improve? No matter what mark you think you’re leaving on the world, the world is going to end which makes everything kinda irrelevant. At the end of the game, the king and pawn go into the same box. Yet here we are: trying to improve ourselves with some overarching purpose in mind. Is that because the delusion of self-improvement is fun? I, for one, don’t know what to do with myself if I’m not working towards some goal because I’m a product of my raising and my culture that insists I always be productive.

I think the existential contraption is in trying to understand anything: it’s the gnosia instead of the agnosia (conceptual vs the nonconceptual (faith)). Do you beat your heart by existential contraption? You have no concept (gnosia) how you beat your heart, but you just do it (agnosia). Likewise in living.

What’s right is relative to a goal, which is arbitrary.

If there is a god, it is continuous with this universe. Things that exist relative to us cannot exist outside this universe. Things outside this universe could not be things we could interact with or have knowledge of; if we could, those things would not be outside our universe.

I posit that if the universe were rewound and begun again, this conversation would have very little chance of being as it is.

“I think the fact that everything is probabilistic rather than deterministic precludes existence of laws.”

Where did you come up with that law? I mean determination? I mean er :arrow_right:

It just occurred to me as I was writing. It’s not a law that there are no laws, as there certainly could be, but in order to have a law, something would have to enforce the law.

It would take me a while to explain why having a law would undermine having anything. The point is the pointlessness because how could an optimal solution be found if restrictions were placed upon the form the solution should take? So absolute lawlessness is a requirement for any truth to manifest.

Unless it is a self enforcing law… something nature enforces upon itself?
It could have for a cause only that no other possibility is ever as likely to occur.
I agree that there can not be absolute laws that aren’t touched by existence.

Definitely truth can’t come as an effect of law unless the law is true. But I wonder isn’t truth a law?

Anyway explain it if you will because I am an anarchist.

Yes but I don’t call that a law. I believe what happens, happens as a result of what happened prior. It’s not a law, but a probabilistic outcome favored by prior conditions. For instance the first life probably could not reproduce. Probably, it popped into existence and died a bazillion times and probably that is happening today as well. Clearly reproduction is an advantage since the lifeform is not as reliant upon random chance to exist, but this advantage isn’t a law, but the most probable outcome. There is nothing insisting reproduction be an advantage, but it just was.

There is also no law saying heat must flow from the hot object to the cold, but it’s astronomically unlikely that heat would ever flow from the cold to the hot.

Video about that

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM-uykVfq_E[/youtube]

I don’t think truth can be a law because a law would exist before the truth could be determined. Truth is an effect; a determination; a result and not a driving force insisting things be so. The sun doesn’t rise because it’s 6am, but it’s often true that the sun does rise at that time. Truth is the result and not the cause.

Truth is a property of a concept, and truth itself is a concept rather than an actual thing, so truth is a concept of a concept, which is second-order fiction. We can only think in terms of concepts which aren’t reality, but what is reality can’t be conceptualized, but we allude to what is real with concepts. I forgot who it was in particular, but one of those fancy-pants chinese sages said “Those who know, don’t say; those who say, don’t know.” It’s just illustrative that what is real can’t be conceptualized (cut into pieces, quantized, abstracted and still maintain relevancy). Whatever is, just is, and there is no underlying force determining it because if there were, the whole show would be pointless. And that’s the point that would take me a long time to articulate.

An analogy is a news article with a comments section. Any news that doesn’t have comments is liable to be fake news because it’s the unrestricted comments that substantiate truth. As soon as censorship takes hold, we have no mechanism to guarantee truth. As soon as someone asserts a truth and therefore censors those who disagree, the truth that is asserted can never be substantiated. It is only when there are no laws (restrictions) that truth can manifest as truth.

Likewise with the universe: if we first start with a law presupposing how things should be, then truth can never be known. Truth will always be relative to that first condition, which was the law. And so what would be the point of having a law then? If having a law taints our data, then why have it? What if we have a law that all coin flips must land heads? What would be the point of flipping the coin? And if we do flip the coin, then why have the law? So if there were laws, there would be no point to anything since the point to everything is to discover what we don’t already know… not to presuppose and become a lifeless mechanism in a deterministic show which is completely pointless.

Okay, but isn’t there still a kind of law in the fact that things don’t tend to follow from things that are happening afterward, or at the same time? Also, what is the difference between a law and a rule? But as a rule a happens from b, but not because it is against the rules to do something else. I think Im with you.

Well, that actually explains transgender. A lifeforms popped into life without the proclivity to reproduce, but with the proclivity to do something wildly different with its sex organs.

It still seems truth would have to exist before a law can really apply, as a backbone of laws. But I agree that if you want to reasonably argue about truth you need to state some specific case and argue that it is a true case. On the other hand The Truth can maybe be accomplished in some way, like Jesus said I am the truth and the way and the life, I thought that was a badass statement for sure and then people took this for true and actually lived their lives because of it, every decision was based on it, even to horrific deaths like that dude who wanted to be crucified upside down because he wasn’t worthy of undergoing the same punishment as Jesus. Thats totally insane but true. I am more “troubled” lets say by these questions than more theoretical truth value computations, I wonder why the hell things are true that don’t seem very likely at all. Maybe truth is more of a how than a what or why. My uncle alway use to say the most fundamental truths are methods. Badass methods, thats what Id trust most, tried and true. Maybe trust and truth are actually the same. But then thats a law, yeah that was what Hume was about I guess but whats the point of thinking if you don’t ever expect to arrive at a concrete rule or something, something you can use? But again then law is an accomplishment and not a condition. Someone also said that God is an accomplishment. It sounds like all order is admirable. Our solar system was totally lawlessly forged, and now it is the law that gives flow to the waters and changing sunlight. And in this cosmic constitution small lawless creatures can pop up that relate to the original lawless precondition.

Maybe the only way something can follow from lawlessness is by setting itself as the law. Like a straight line escaping a black hole. But how can that happen?

Maybe law is what happens when more than one beings are forced to occupy the same space. Not like, exactly the same space, but say the same room or the same pool of gravity where they need to be influencing the others without being destroyed. Or whenever that manages to happen, the law is what made it happen. So law is a balance.

That means law is time. Regular progression happens only inside a law. So economic growth only happens within a law and I guess crime doesn’t pay because it has a cut up timeline unless the crime sets the law, then all the pay from time comes into the timeless crime’s hands.

Its Sunday, if youre wondering.

Oh you mean a law governing the direction of time? If time went backwards, how could you tell? If B comes from A, then the sequence of events is A then B, but if you experience it backwards, it would still be that B came from A. Think about it… if you went back in time, you’d have no knowledge of the fact that you went back in time. So at timeslice B you’d say “Ah, B happened!” then at timeslice A you’d say “I wonder what will result from A”.

There is no causality because in order for there to be, you’d have to explain how one thing affects another thing. But if one thing can affect another thing, then they are not 2 things, but 1 thing. And if there are no things, then there is no causality. If there is no causality, then your question has no meaning.

What does “happening afterward” mean? After what? After a moment in time? Well how long is that? So we draw the line thinner and thinner until we find there is no time in which for anything to happen. Who was the guy (zeno or meno) who argued it was impossible for an arrow to ever hit a target because if the arrow is in motion, then it doesn’t exist since there is no place in time where it is. Or something like that.

Just the connotation or context. It depends how you use the words.

But both laws and rules are something enforced by authority. If there is no authority, then what we think are laws or rules are really just observed regularities.

Life that pops into existence wouldn’t have sex organs. That’s what I’m saying… the organs would have to be selected for. Reproduction itself would have to be selected for because it competed better than life that didn’t reproduce.

The latest hypothesis is that life formed from rocks and almost certainly still forms today in the same way. The clay particles that break off of rocks have the perfect structure for self-assembly of molecules… they provide a little tunnels for molecules to bounce around in and form chains. And plants eat rocks ya know. Then animals eat plants.

Oh I see what you’re saying… there would have to exist something to make a law from. But existence itself is relative. Nothing exist on its own in the middle of nothing because it would have no context or contrast to give it meaning. Every truth must be relative to something and even that truth must be relative and so on forever. We’re looking for the most fundamental thing and we’re never going to find it because we can’t use the thing we’re looking for to find the thing we’re looking for. That’s what the chinese describe as searching for the ass you’re riding or putting your glasses on so you can find your glasses.

I think what Jesus was referring to was the names of the temples or something like that. Each were named “the way, the truth, the life”. You have to be on guard for distortions in the bible.

Truth is relative. 1+1 = 2, but 1 male + 1 female = 1 baby or maybe a whole litter, or 1 matter + 1 antimatter = zero. So truth depends on the context.

I resonate with that since I can’t remember the quadratic equation, but I remember how to derive it. The method is more important than the triviality. Once I learn the method, I don’t need the facts since I can regenerate them.

Watch out that trust is not appeal to authority.

You got it!

Energy radiates from black holes as hawking radiation. Actually, it’s very hard to enter a black hole since most things are accelerated, ripped apart, and flung across the universe. To actually enter inside, you’d have to be on a straight line trajectory with the center and have a lot of luck not to get knocked off course.

But yeah, laws exist because there are no laws saying otherwise. If we’re in the jungle, the biggest guy makes the law. The solar system formed of no laws and now it’s the law. It’s the golden rule: the one with the gold makes the rules.

Yes but all this what you say is still in the form of this, therefore that. Apparently we can do that, conclude that if one thing A is the case, then another thing B is aso the case but yet another thing X is not.
For me it is hard to not see any laws, when we practice logic.
Like if a pocket the 8 ball, it is not because I afterwards collected 25 bucks, but because I was arranging my force in a certain way through the cue.

It is as if the words if, then, because (etc) can’t be used in a sentence if I want to avoid relying on laws.

But the same thing happens here, when you say because. You say that fact that there is no causality has a cause.

It seems he was ahead of Heisenberg. But Heraclitus would say yeah well things change. Maybe shoot an arrow into into a target to prove it.

Just the connotation or context. It depends how you use the words.

But both laws and rules are something enforced by authority. If there is no authority, then what we think are laws or rules are really just observed regularities.

What if authority comes into existence because of the way nature is everything so also aggression and will and law.
Authority always seems to opt up, like life.
Regularities are called laws in science, but in justice laws are not at all indicating regularities, only a will.

Thats very cool.
Where can I study this?

Well but Relativity from Einstein is not really relative to other truths, or is it actually relative to some truth that says that things are not relative?

Well check this out.

think about it. He said I am the truth and did badass things, and because he was so badass, people thought “okay so this is true. Lets go!” (then this became truth raining down on people like hail)
Because they alway wanted to know the truth, because having truth is power. You can out smart people if you have truth, or get to to the important places before the others who don’t know truth.

Yeah but tell that to power. People always come to power by denying what you say.
Why is lies so much more efficient than truth?
Why is the monotheistic god ruling over the fossil fuels? Dafucc is that?

Yeah thats deep. Methods get things done. Always proud of my uncle. He works on trains. I mean not on the train, he is in engines. Must feel good to ride an engine you put together from sheer logic. He always aggravated my grandfather who didn’t believe that things are better because of science, took cold baths and when he lost his hunting license he became vegetarian and cultivated beautiful garden. But thats also method.

I wonder, is the seasons, the way heat and moisture are distributed over time, also a method? Because it brings forth plants, and allows for all this complex lawless machinery.
Anyway lets fuck laws and hail method.

Or let it be your own authority at least.
Trust can be an appeal to oneself. Okay I trust this is going to go well, so Ill just do the best Ill be able to and its going to be fine. Thats the only trust I ever really had that was proven true.
I dont “trust” that the Sun comes up. I just am not surprised when it does.

Its a good universe to live in.

Yeah I don’t think straight lines exist inside of black holes. But also no laws.
By the way if blackholes get created by a lot of stellar mass collapsing, then they are really well balanced out through spacetime for not crashing into each other and sucking all mass into a giant hole.

:auto-checkeredflag:

Great discussion.

Communication functions within laws (restrictions, boundaries, rules). If I don’t follow the rules of language (if, then, else), then I can’t convey any concepts. It’s not that the laws of language are being enforced by an authority, but if I didn’t follow them, communication would break down. Actually, if the laws of communication were indeed laws, I wouldn’t be able to break them. So grammar is more of a construct for attainment of a goal rather than a law. It’s as if we woke up one day and realized that if we put restraints on things, such as a flowing stream, we can guide the water for a goal. It’s an idea that happened to come about as an artifact of what had existed previously.

Reality is not necessarily logical though. Superposition isn’t logical, quantum tunneling isn’t logical, heat flowing the wrong way isn’t logical, so logic itself is not really a law.

That’s just an artifact of argumentation. There isn’t a cause of no causality for the reason (because) that there is nothing that could be a cause. Unless you’re saying a cause can be a lack of a cause, but the lack of a cause is a state of nonexistence, emptiness, nothingness and how can nothing be something? Are things that do not exist, existent as things that do not exist? Is the nonexistence of a unicorn an existent thing?

Here it is plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/#Arr

[i]An immediate concern is why Zeno is justified in assuming that the arrow is at rest during any instant. It follows immediately if one assumes that an instant lasts 0s: whatever speed the arrow has, it will get nowhere if it has no time at all. But what if one held that the smallest parts of time are finite—if tiny—so that a moving arrow might actually move some distance during an instant? One way of supporting the assumption—which requires reading quite a lot into the text—starts by assuming that instants are indivisible. Then suppose that an arrow actually moved during an instant. It would be at different locations at the start and end of the instant, which implies that the instant has a ‘start’ and an ‘end’, which in turn implies that it has at least two parts, and so is divisible, contrary to our assumption. (Note that this argument only establishes that nothing can move during an instant, not that instants cannot be finite.)

So then, nothing moves during any instant, but time is entirely composed of instants, so nothing ever moves. A first response is to point out that determining the velocity of the arrow means dividing the distance traveled in some time by the length of that time. But—assuming from now on that instants have zero duration—this formula makes no sense in the case of an instant: the arrow travels 0m in the 0s the instant lasts, but 0/0 m/s is not any number at all. Thus it is fallacious to conclude from the fact that the arrow doesn’t travel any distance in an instant that it is at rest; whether it is in motion at an instant or not depends on whether it travels any distance in a finite interval that includes the instant in question.[/i]

I mean objective authority (god) and not authority that is a product of what existed prior. If you’re positing a law of nature, a fundamental law that cannot be broken, then there would have to be a god to enforce it. If there is no god to enforce it, then the law is just a happening, consequence, artifact, “a whatever”. It may seem like a law because of its consistency, but it just is and isn’t something that is enforced.

That’s cool that you think it’s cool!

Start at about 27:30 or just watch the whole thing :slight_smile:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVW9CBI52nU[/youtube]

Pay particular attention at 28:45. That’s the bit I’m on about and why I think life must be popping into existence all time, but it can’t reproduce, so it just lives and dies unnoticed. I’m a panvitalist who believes there is no distinction between life and nonlife. Life doesn’t come from nonlife and if life exists, it’s all alive, but with varying degrees of complexity. Whatever it is that makes us alive is native to this universe and isn’t something conjured into existence like magic because some non-living junk happened to arrange itself just so; no the life property must be inherent to everything.

Complex life can emerge anywhere an energy source exists. Here is some bacteria that use radioactive uranium for energy deep inside earth sciencedaily.com/releases/2 … 192814.htm

Existence has no meaning outside of relativity. It’s not Einstein’s relativity, but epistemological relativity. If you say something exists, what do you mean? If you think about it long enough, you’ll discover that existence is always relational. Something only exists as part of, as a function of, inside of, outside of, or somehow in relation to something else. There is no such thing as exclusive and abstract existence. Eventually it will occur to you to ask what the universe exists in relation to and to that question I’ll just say “I have no idea” lol. I suppose it can only be an infinite regression of some sort.

James used to say that something can only be considered existent if it affects something else, which is another way of saying the same thing. If something cannot affect this universe, then it doesn’t exist in relation to this universe.

He said that because the Jews had temples or doorways or something that one had to pass through to get to the holy of holies.

I managed to dig this up:

The foundation for all of the work we will present on this subject is based upon the, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life,” statement made by Jesus. What we have discovered is that these names, (the way, the truth and the life), are the names used to identify the entry ways into the Tabernacle chambers. “The Way,” for example is the name of the gate that leads into the Tabernacle Courtyard. “The Truth” is the name of the door into the Holy Place, and in like manner, “the Life,” is the passage into the Most Holy place of God. possessthevision.wordpress.com/ … abernacle/

So when Jesus said that, everyone knew what he meant (and it probably pissed them off). He is the only doorway through which one can enter into the holy of holies.

Lies have incentive to propagate. Mark Twain said a lie can travel the earth while the truth is still putting on its shoes.

Not sure what you mean.

Bruce Lee was a helluva philosopher (actually he wanted to be recognized for his mind more than his body) and he said “let what works be testament for what’s right.” Of course, he was referring to fighting style, but it’s applicable anywhere.

You have to trust yourself because if you don’t, then you can’t even trust your mistrust of yourself.

What’s a straight line? It’s the shortest direct between two points, but since an airplane can’t fly through the earth, the shortest distance is a curved line on the surface of a sphere. I don’t think straight lines exist. I’m not referring to segments, but lines with infinite lengths. Those types of lines are really circles with very large diameters. Afterall, a circle with infinite radius is a straight line (curvature of zero).

The distances are so vast that when 2 galaxies collide, no stars are expected to impact each other. That’s what the astronomers on the youtube videos say. It’s mindblowing!

Yup, it’s a lot of fun. Now I need to go do some chores because I sat here too long lol

Thanks man, I will be checking these evidences, and Ill get back to you on the subject.
For me Ive got a satisfied feeling about the whole business with laws and rules, I figure we figured it out, by maybe what James calls Definitional Logic.
Trying to find definitions that work both ways.
So this definition of law is very good where it both explains law and un-law.

But: Only when we bring these obtuse “general descriptions” out into a world in which flesh and blood human beings use the word “fun” in particular contexts for particular reasons can we explore the limitations of the tools that philosophers use in discussing it way, way up in what I deem to be the clouds of scholastic abstraction.

Thus:

Suppose Jack has “fun” torturing animals. His purpose could be to exorcise the pain inflicted on him by others, or it might be just to entertain himself.

How then do philosophers/ethicists pin this behavior down morally?

Again, I may well not be understanding your point. Let’s illustrate it using this example.

The point is that human interactions precipitate conflicts when wants and needs themselves come into conflict. How then is the thought put into the rules of behavior not an existential contraption rooted in particular historical, cultural and interpersonal contexts? Or the thought put into the choice not to have any rules at all?

All the time making the assumption that with regard to causality here, some measure of human autonomy exists?

My own understanding of it [in the is/ought world] revolves around this: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

How then is this not applicable to you when in the course of living your life a conflict erupts around the understanding what is “fun”?

Which justs takes me back to the gap between what you are inclined to believe about it here and now and your capacity to demonstrate that all other rational men and women are obligated to believe it in turn.

And while it is certainly “fun” to speculate about it, what is actually at stake here is the extent to which [b]anything[/b] that we think, feel and do will ever be other than that which we were [b]always going to[/b] think, feel and do.

And all we can do is to take our own “existential leap” to a frame of mind “here and now” rooted at least in part in dasein.

Or so it seems to me.

In other words, if you google “free will scholarly articles” you get this: google.com/search?ei=T6CeW6 … CtGOIbf6DY

And what does this reflect but the gap between what you think you know about it here and now and what just some of the thinking that others have put into it is. So, what are the odds that your assumptions/assessments about it above and below come closest to the “whole truth” about it?

What we deem to be “purposeful” reasons for doing what we do may well be but the illusion of purpose ontologically rooted in the purposelessness of matter unfolding only as it ever could have going back to…to what exactly?

Well, to, among other things, those “unknown unknowns” embedded in Rumsfeld’s Law.

Then [from my frame of mind] it’s back up into the stratosphere of abstraction:

What on earth does this mean? Let’s focus in on a particular purpose that a particular individual might have in a particular context.

For example, my own purpose here at ILP is to find an argument that might persuade me that [b]with respect to the existential relationship between identity, conflicting goods and political power[/b] it can be demonstrated that being down in the hole that I am in is not a reasonable frame of mind. That there is a way up out of it. Now, in a wholly determined universe my purpose here is in itself no different from that beating heart. I think that I am acting with some degree of autonomy here but that may well be – essentially, mechanistically, materially, phenomenologically, ontologically etc. – an illusion.

But how can I then attempt to know this for sure when this attempt in and of itself may be no less determined by the immutable laws of matter.

How can I examine a reality here that “I” am inherently a part of? Just one more domino here and now toppling over onto you toppling over onto me.

With “purpose” only possible if teleologically there is a God.

What goal in what context construed from what point of view? And “arbitrary” in what sense? Let’s flesh this out.

Instead [in my view] you continue to just assert things. Things like this:

A world of words. Truth revolving tautologically, circularly around the meaning that you give to words that make contact with nothing other than more words. You “posit” things:

Posit: assume as a fact; put forward as a basis of argument.

[my emphasis]

Serendipper prioritizes fun.
Iambiguous prioritizes trying to find out if there is a solution to conflicting goods.

This leads them to interact with people in certain ways.

Iambiguous thinks he, currently, has no way to know if either of these prioritizations is damaging or good, etc.

Yet his dialogue with Serendippier looks just like any conflicting goods dialogue.
You think you know something and I think that’s bad but can’t prove it. It might be just another contraption on my part. But then I’ll keep conflicting with your position.

for some reason.