Well, I've already agreed that these are all driven within their respective microsystems.

So I guess this all comes down to what you think of as random?

Do you think there are any other earth-like planets in the universe?

Planets that have precisely the same plant and animal species on them, etc.

If not, then wouldn't you say that all planets are a random toss of the cosmic soup?

I guess this is what I mean by 'random'.

The tosses are random, but the soup is not. The order comes from order in atoms. They are the 'dots on the dice' so-to-speak.

This is all I'm saing.

I'm not suggesting that things are entirely happenstance.

Just like tossing playing dice, you can roll anything from 2 to 12 and any whole number in between.

Is that happenstance?

I think not.

If you could roll any fraction, and even irrational number, then maybe it would be happenstance.

So it can be 'random' yet not truly 'happenstance'.

Random doesn't necessarily mean there is no structure behind it at all.

At least his is my own personal view.

That says it all abra, you said random, but you didn't mean random did you?

Here is the simplest definition that has no bias.

-Lack of predictability, without any systematic pattern.


Sky you assume in all the wrong places. Science makes sense becuase it works, suggesting that because I cite sources that I do not think for myself is insulting. I only do that for three reasons, one to show where you can read about this subject(without bogus added fluff which fills the internet), two becuase it is a waste of my time to spoon feed anyone and thirdly becuase when you become a scientist it becomes second nature to cite your sources.

Where you should assume is in the principle that I and everyone else here on these forums thinks for themselves and just happen to agree with there sources by the very fact that they post these sources along with the quotes taken from them to back up there respective points. Otherwise you are just insulting to be insulting.

Now on to the conscious assembly of complex structures . . .. uhh where have you been for the last 25 years? In fact what are you typing on right now? Its not hard to imagine a billion different kinds of intelligences that can create life, consciousness, complex structures that can evolve, what is difficult is to explain how this intelligence could create all of reality when to be conscious and intelligent is to live within reality.

How something can create the building blocks of reality and in this proposition you suppose that there is no need for building blocks for this intelligence to do its thing. ( I am not saying this is your stance, I am responding to the idea, I take it this is NOT your stance from your post . . correct me if my assumption is incorrect.)

Really my only hope in posting anything here is that someone may read this, become curious about reality, instead of some fantasy, and actually study, and perhaps one day add to our knowledge . . . .

I'm interested in this definition.

I understood Abra's dice example to mean that each individual throw is unpredicatable. But it is predicatable that a graph of a million throws would product a near-perfect bell curve of "number of dots up per throw".

As far as I can see, the only reason to say that the dice example is not truly random is because there are only a finite number of possible results for each individual throw.

Is that what you mean? That a system must have infinite possibilities in order for it to be truly "random"?

A bell curve does not represent randomness btw . . . .

school people, school its good for you.

Each and every dot has an equal probably . . . there for it cannot be a curve . . . sigh.

It will jog around . . . . alot . . . there will be streaks . . . keep rolling . . . . the streaks will eventually be equal in distribution as well . . . . ( A line not a curve will form over time with = distribution.)

The size of the set HAS NOTHING to do with it. If there where no numbers but 0 and 1 binary, random is still random. If the set is infinite random is random . . .

There is no influences on a random distribution . . . I am going have to leave it at this . .. I find it interesting that out of all the points I raise this is the most simple to understand from my perspective and the least interesting, yet what gets responded to . . . I am going have to think on that a while.

_______________________

BTW free will has to do with the nature of spacetime, and the reference point of anything at higher dimensions . . . . has nothing to do with us . . . sadly so many people get stuck on the concept that humanity is somehow special . . . and that only biological observers count . . . .

Ok, by that definition then tossing a pair of dice is not a random event.

The numbers that come up indeed to have a systematic pattern given enough tosses.

However, that pattern doesn't predict the number that will come up in any specific 'next toss'. But it certainly reveals a systematic pattern overall in the larger view.

For example 7's will come up a whole lot more often that 2's. Simply because there are more ways to roll a 7 and there is only one way to roll a 2.



Yes you can definitly think of it this way.

Even in quantum mechanics, people often think that anything goes. But this isn't true. Only certain configurations can arise from a quantum field. Just like only certain numbers can come up on a pair of dice.

The universe does not have 'infinite' possiblities. It can only do what it can do within the 'laws of physics' (or if you like) within the restrictions of what the quantum fields can produce.

Yes, we live in a QUANTUM universe. This means that it's quantized. And this means that you can be either hither or thither but not in between.

You can be either this, or that, but not a ill-defined splat.

Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying.

Time is a human made illusion...

Take the human made out of it, and it doesn't exist.


Lies and myths.... lies and myths..

I understand that you hold those opinions. I just don't happen share in them.

The thing that both of you are failing to see, is that natural selection is not random . . . . and that both of you have misrepresented what random is more then once to make no point what so ever about the topic at hand.

So . . . what is your points?

_____________________

Abra randomness does not have a predictable structure, yes it has patterns . . . RANDOM ONES, where did the definition say it doesn't . . . ? huh?

IT SAID SYSTEMATIC PATTERNS

define systematic: methodical in procedure or plan

No methodology in the patterns would be random patterns, there is a methodology to natural selection, that which is selected improves survivability . . . sigh this is tiring.

I think I am done


Its not my belief, its one possibility. I hold no belief on free will, just as I hold no belief on god.

take care guys you can continue to use false representations (interpretations) of words to discuss this topic and go no where all you like.

Do you mean me, Bushidobillyclub?



Pardon?

No I didn't even see your post Jess till now, but again what you said is wrong, we have empirical evidence to show that time is real, it ticks weather a consciousness is present to observe it or not.

A lie is something that which is made up . . . we couldn't make this stuff up . . . its stranger then fiction.

And you can continue to be condescending and self-righteous all you like.

Whose empirical evidence, Billy?

Humankind?

Just for a second, would you humour me, please?


Imagine the stance of a extra terristial observor.

Look down upon human kind's history... map out a time line for yourself...please...

Pretty kind of cool there for a while, huh?

Although, as an observor, you giggle at what this earth populace does with themselves, also... they create this way of labelling days, nights, seasons, and all the other increments of human kind made time stuff.

Then they go inwards... into the hour, the minute, the second, the micro second... then they take their really cool sticks with lines on them (slide rule thingos) and go out, into the stars... and they label wobbles, and wefts and warps of their sun, their moon and theorise about how long it takes from a to b and use their sticks with lines on them... and then decide this is so... according to their labels.

I can't think in your box...

because when one takes out the human in this experience... we are full of lies and myths...(or theories)

I can spend a lifetime PROVING to myself cows are green... if I invent the parameters...

and it will be empirical evidence.

I think we're on the same page and you just don't see it.

I'm in agreement that natural selection within ecosystems isn't exactly 'random'. But I hold that the reason it isn't random is because of all the laws of physics that restricted it in the first place.

I think you need to step far back from natural selection and maybe look at some simple chemistry (prior to life), but along those lines.

In other words, why do membranes form naturally?

And why can osmosis occur naturally?

To me this isn't really a process of natural selection but rather it's a process of "what can happen will happen".

Molecules come together in certain ways because that's how they are made. They are electromagnetically polarized, etc.

How they form bonds, and how they come together is all based on the laws of physics (and random chance).

It's random chance that they bump into each other. It's the laws of physics that make them stick togther to form more complicated structures.

Again, the bumping into each other like the roll of the dice.

The sticking together in certain ways is like the dots on the dice (the laws of physics)

I don't think I'm disagreeing with you at all when it comes to natural selection.

I'm just suggesting that natural selection doesn't even begin to occur until a whole lot of more primitive types of structures had been formed that didn't use a process of 'natural selection'.

In other words, forget about life evolving on Earth and think about elements being formed within the stars?

Is that a process of natural selection?

Or is it just due to the laws of physics - AND the random collisions of nuclei?

Your arrogance is showing Billy...

It's probably just some form of forgivable frustration.

So....is our work done here?

Have all given our views to discover we are wrong?

Apparently I am... cause Billy said so...






I love it when I'm wrong..

Well I for one feel as if I have shot my entire wad.

JB...



Perhaps you should separate what you think about the author from his actual writing. I never wrote or implied that your particular premonition was not substantial. People have premonitions and thoughts of worry continually, but when those thoughts turn out to be false, they are quickly forgotten.



Exactly.

Are we not discussing how one acquires knowledge?



As if you know who I am?



Knowledge of what?



If someone had never experienced a piano in any way, and played it successfully the very first time that they had ever touched one, then I would call that innate knowledge. You have described just such an event, but personally I believe that the story you tell holds no substantive truth. Could you show me somehow, other than I taking your word for it, because I do not.

I played one also at three. As did anyone else who was sat down in front of one...




Premonitions are an overflow of the unconscious into the conscious.



This is laughable. What statistics? One can just about find a statistic for whatever it is that they are attempting to support.

Allow me to hold up a mirror for you.



They end up being true.



James...




Ya think?



As I have already stated once...

Are we not having a conversation which concerns how people acquire knowledge?




Knowledge....... "out there"??????

As if the one who knows need not be present? What would constitute knowledge without someone to know?



An idea or concept which is believed and found to be true cannot exist without the vehicle through which ideas come....

US....

Knowledge is a manmade concept, therefore it cannot be acquired without experience.

By your description everything that exists outside of man/woman equates to knowledge.



I will assume that DNA is knowledge and by taking this one step further within the context of this conversation ask this...

HOW DO WE ACQUIRE DNA?

Uh... sexual experience????

No, I wasn't taking part in that discussion.

I was addressing the question that was brought up (I think by Sky), of precisely what constitutes knowledge.

So I guess I was addressing an spin-off issue.

However, if you're going to discuss how we acquire knowledge doesn't it make sense to first define the very meaning of knowledge.

Billy spoke about DNA being knowledge (or acquiring knowledge), but I think what he meant by that is that DNA appears to evolve to higher states of complexity (i.e. higher states of information)

Therefore if information = knowledge. Then anything thing that becomes more complex is "gaining knowledge".

It doesn't need to be a sentient being or even a conscious being.

This was Billy's suggestion with the DNA in the first place and I was just trying to share that I believe I understand his point.

You always have a tendency to lose me by using ill-defined terms (like knowledge) and trying to make some sort of conclusion about how it is acquired before you've even defined precisely what it is in that context.

So I'm like JB anymore.

I just never understand where you are coming from that's all.

But I do believe I undstood where Billy was coming from with the DNA analogy. And that's what I was attempting to address.

HUH? I'm going to stop right here Creative, and ask you what on earth are you talking about?

(Of course I don't expect a coherent answer.)

I am addressing the subject and only the subject. Or at least I thought I was. If you can't have a conversation with me without dragging up all of your old feelings of what you think I might "think of you,("the author") then just forget about it.

I am being as honest and polite at addressing you and the subject as I know how but apparently you want to continue to hold some sort of complex or grudge and make assumptions about me. I don't think I will be continuing this conversation with you because it has already taken a very wrong turn and nothing you said after this remark makes any sense at all anyway. (We probably don't even have an agreement on the meaning of "knowledge.")

Apparently I have no idea what we were actually talking about anyway.

What ever point you are (ever) trying to make I don't want it.

I'm quite sure its probably wrong or of no "substantive value" anyway.

Have a nice evening.