Posts by Raymond Miller38

Mark Torres14 said:I haven't got a clue what to write that actually sounds smart.🤷

That thought of yours caught my eye. Are equations refined and elegant because of the consequences they reveal, or are they just written in a way where the symbols look like poetry to you?😕

Because of the consequences.
Specifically, because of their meaning—serving as an accurate interpretation of natural laws, a symbol of recognized order, and so on.

Not every discussion needs to end with someone getting offended, storming out, or devolving into a petty argument. 😁

Mark Torres14 said:Laws are baked into matter. You can't just have someone slap laws onto matter from the sidelines. Were you thinking of God?
But honestly, can you even imagine matter that doesn't obey laws? I don't see any dualism here, just pure "monism."
A law is just a ratio. That ratio is what keeps matter stable.
Look at it another way. Maybe laws are just our limited ability to grasp the objective reality surrounding us. It means the world is much bigger than we can wrap our heads around, and the only way we can predict anything with certainty is through our understanding of these laws. Maybe that's why a song, or any piece of art, looks so elegant, refined, beautiful, and maddeningly complex when measured against any mathematical expression.
Back at the medini cave, I asked Apamet Quote this question:

Anyway, the post was actually about this kid

I was referring to the external tuning of gluon particle properties we discussed earlier. Yes, by a creator.
Specifically, those particles that carry the laws. Naturally, they are matter. I think there’s just been a misunderstanding because of my habit of using analogies or different terminology to explain things. 😁

Mark Torres14 said:Laws are baked into matter. You can't just have someone slap laws onto matter from the sidelines. Were you thinking of God?
But honestly, can you even imagine matter that doesn't obey laws? I don't see any dualism here, just pure "monism."
A law is just a ratio. That ratio is what keeps matter stable.
Look at it another way. Maybe laws are just our limited ability to grasp the objective reality surrounding us. It means the world is much bigger than we can wrap our heads around, and the only way we can predict anything with certainty is through our understanding of these laws. Maybe that's why a song, or any piece of art, looks so elegant, refined, beautiful, and maddeningly complex when measured against any mathematical expression.
Back at the medini cave, I asked Apamet Quote this question:

Anyway, the post was actually about this kid

Laws are, in any case, an interpretation via our language, writing, and perception. Most people find Euclidean geometry perfectly logical and intuitive. But that is merely a geometric model suitable for describing the macroscopic phenomena around us.

Otherwise, sometimes equations strike me as being just as elegant and refined as poetry. 😁

Mark Torres14 said:Laws are baked into matter. You can't just have someone slap laws onto matter from the sidelines. Were you thinking of God?
But honestly, can you even imagine matter that doesn't obey laws? I don't see any dualism here, just pure "monism."
A law is just a ratio. That ratio is what keeps matter stable.
Look at it another way. Maybe laws are just our limited ability to grasp the objective reality surrounding us. It means the world is much bigger than we can wrap our heads around, and the only way we can predict anything with certainty is through our understanding of these laws. Maybe that's why a song, or any piece of art, looks so elegant, refined, beautiful, and maddeningly complex when measured against any mathematical expression.
Back at the medini cave, I asked Apamet Quote this question:

Anyway, the post was actually about this kid

We could try to run the numbers, but it's an unnecessary complication. Or maybe it’s just impossible. Honestly, trying to quantify it is more convoluted than human consciousness itself. That's exactly why I'm leaving it out, as I previously stated. 🙂

Mark Torres14 said:Hold on. Before I jump in, you need to explain that sentence better. What exactly do you mean by passive versus active matter?

I used a clumsy term. I was referring to our previous point—whether these laws are imposed on matter from the outside (making it "passive") or if they result from the matter's own interactions (making it "active," since without external laws, passive matter might not interact at all. An "active" substance is capable of developing its own laws).

It wasn't the best comparison.

P.S. When listing elementary particles, I stated there were 6 sets of 3, totaling 24.
My math was off. There are actually 18. (3x6=18, not 24. 😁)

Mark Torres14 said:So, what exactly are "natural laws" to you?
Take the law of conservation of energy, for example.
Are you saying the entire universe is rigged so that you can't take anything away without an equal offset somewhere else? Just like how virtual particles pop out of a vacuum.
Essentially, there is no such thing as true emptiness in this world.

Laws of nature?
Let's look at transience.

Natural laws are simply the properties of different types of matter that cause them to interact in a consistent manner every single time.
We use mathematics to model this by defining their interactions as fixed relationships within space and time.

Whether this is a set rule imposed on "passive" matter or a direct consequence of "active" matter's relationships is a question I leave open.

Mark Torres14 said:Respect. You're a genius. My hero.🙏

If existence is what it is, then He definitely exists.
Actually, I think it’s exactly the opposite. I don't see why being "one" or "unified" makes any sense here. If everything was just one single, identical thing, how on earth would you get any variety out of it? How could diversity even exist if there wasn't anything different to start with? 🤷
If being is simply what it is, then that’s plenty. Take material reality—that's being. It just exists. And maybe the reason it "is" comes down to nothing more than the laws of nature.

Why one instead of many? I don't think there’s some deep logical explanation for it. Honestly, it’s just a matter of aesthetics.
It seems like certain ways of being right just feel good to us—maybe even instinctive. Why? Because we’re the only ones who actually stop to ask, "Is there a soul?"

I haven't found any consensus on the nature of human consciousness or what actually triggers it. There’s zero agreement in the natural sciences, and frankly, nobody has even come close to fully mastering the subject.
It’s always been like this. Maybe it's because it hits people on such a personal level, so it stayed buried in the realm of faith and religious dogma. Biology and psychology mostly just stick to how things work on the surface; they rarely bother questioning the actual root cause.

You didn't find any consensus because human consciousness is incredibly complex. You can't just take mathematical tools—which work fine for physical matter—and expect them to spit out an absolute truth about consciousness like they would for some simple equation.
But look, you’ve got philosophy, history, sociology, psychology, psychiatry... all these scientific disciplines that either directly or indirectly dig into what human consciousness actually is and how it reacts to objective reality.

What do you actually think about consciousness? Where does it come from, and what even is it?

I don't know. 🤷I’m right there with Kant. It's the one thing you can't pin down with a simple cause-and-effect chain. It just has this transcendent, intrinsic character that defies explanation.

I believe so. When it comes to metaphysical problems, I usually tackle them using scientific facts mixed with a philosophical mindset. Even then, my knowledge is pretty limited and modest. If I try to factor in consciousness too, my own ambition will just land me in way over my head.
First, I try to wrap my head around things within one specific field. Once I actually get that down, then—and only then—do I even attempt to bridge everything together into one big picture.

The reality today is that being a true polymath is basically impossible. You can't possibly wrap your head around every field of human interest anymore. Even within a single niche, the flood of data, papers, and experiments is so overwhelming that we have scientists who specialize in just one tiny, microscopic sliver of their own field.
That’s why if you’re actually trying to learn, you should never be ashamed of what you don't know. The real trouble starts when someone thinks they've mastered everything and tries to force their "expertise" on others through sheer physical or mental bullying.

Thanks. Honestly, the example you gave is so basic that you don't need to be Einstein to wrap your head around it.

Mark Torres14 said:Respect. You're a genius. My hero.🙏

If existence is what it is, then He definitely exists.
Actually, I think it’s exactly the opposite. I don't see why being "one" or "unified" makes any sense here. If everything was just one single, identical thing, how on earth would you get any variety out of it? How could diversity even exist if there wasn't anything different to start with? 🤷
If being is simply what it is, then that’s plenty. Take material reality—that's being. It just exists. And maybe the reason it "is" comes down to nothing more than the laws of nature.

Why one instead of many? I don't think there’s some deep logical explanation for it. Honestly, it’s just a matter of aesthetics.
It seems like certain ways of being right just feel good to us—maybe even instinctive. Why? Because we’re the only ones who actually stop to ask, "Is there a soul?"

I haven't found any consensus on the nature of human consciousness or what actually triggers it. There’s zero agreement in the natural sciences, and frankly, nobody has even come close to fully mastering the subject.
It’s always been like this. Maybe it's because it hits people on such a personal level, so it stayed buried in the realm of faith and religious dogma. Biology and psychology mostly just stick to how things work on the surface; they rarely bother questioning the actual root cause.

You didn't find any consensus because human consciousness is incredibly complex. You can't just take mathematical tools—which work fine for physical matter—and expect them to spit out an absolute truth about consciousness like they would for some simple equation.
But look, you’ve got philosophy, history, sociology, psychology, psychiatry... all these scientific disciplines that either directly or indirectly dig into what human consciousness actually is and how it reacts to objective reality.

What do you actually think about consciousness? Where does it come from, and what even is it?

I don't know. 🤷I’m right there with Kant. It's the one thing you can't pin down with a simple cause-and-effect chain. It just has this transcendent, intrinsic character that defies explanation.

I believe so. When it comes to metaphysical problems, I usually tackle them using scientific facts mixed with a philosophical mindset. Even then, my knowledge is pretty limited and modest. If I try to factor in consciousness too, my own ambition will just land me in way over my head.
First, I try to wrap my head around things within one specific field. Once I actually get that down, then—and only then—do I even attempt to bridge everything together into one big picture.

The reality today is that being a true polymath is basically impossible. You can't possibly wrap your head around every field of human interest anymore. Even within a single niche, the flood of data, papers, and experiments is so overwhelming that we have scientists who specialize in just one tiny, microscopic sliver of their own field.
That’s why if you’re actually trying to learn, you should never be ashamed of what you don't know. The real trouble starts when someone thinks they've mastered everything and tries to force their "expertise" on others through sheer physical or mental bullying.

I agree they handle that aspect. But like I said, they aren't providing enough shared solutions or answers. Not enough to let me say, "This is accurate enough to risk including in my theory without further study."

Mark Torres14 said:Respect. You're a genius. My hero.🙏

If existence is what it is, then He definitely exists.
Actually, I think it’s exactly the opposite. I don't see why being "one" or "unified" makes any sense here. If everything was just one single, identical thing, how on earth would you get any variety out of it? How could diversity even exist if there wasn't anything different to start with? 🤷
If being is simply what it is, then that’s plenty. Take material reality—that's being. It just exists. And maybe the reason it "is" comes down to nothing more than the laws of nature.

Why one instead of many? I don't think there’s some deep logical explanation for it. Honestly, it’s just a matter of aesthetics.
It seems like certain ways of being right just feel good to us—maybe even instinctive. Why? Because we’re the only ones who actually stop to ask, "Is there a soul?"

I haven't found any consensus on the nature of human consciousness or what actually triggers it. There’s zero agreement in the natural sciences, and frankly, nobody has even come close to fully mastering the subject.
It’s always been like this. Maybe it's because it hits people on such a personal level, so it stayed buried in the realm of faith and religious dogma. Biology and psychology mostly just stick to how things work on the surface; they rarely bother questioning the actual root cause.

You didn't find any consensus because human consciousness is incredibly complex. You can't just take mathematical tools—which work fine for physical matter—and expect them to spit out an absolute truth about consciousness like they would for some simple equation.
But look, you’ve got philosophy, history, sociology, psychology, psychiatry... all these scientific disciplines that either directly or indirectly dig into what human consciousness actually is and how it reacts to objective reality.

What do you actually think about consciousness? Where does it come from, and what even is it?

I don't know. 🤷I’m right there with Kant. It's the one thing you can't pin down with a simple cause-and-effect chain. It just has this transcendent, intrinsic character that defies explanation.

I believe so. When it comes to metaphysical problems, I usually tackle them using scientific facts mixed with a philosophical mindset. Even then, my knowledge is pretty limited and modest. If I try to factor in consciousness too, my own ambition will just land me in way over my head.
First, I try to wrap my head around things within one specific field. Once I actually get that down, then—and only then—do I even attempt to bridge everything together into one big picture.

The reality today is that being a true polymath is basically impossible. You can't possibly wrap your head around every field of human interest anymore. Even within a single niche, the flood of data, papers, and experiments is so overwhelming that we have scientists who specialize in just one tiny, microscopic sliver of their own field.
That’s why if you’re actually trying to learn, you should never be ashamed of what you don't know. The real trouble starts when someone thinks they've mastered everything and tries to force their "expertise" on others through sheer physical or mental bullying.

I agree. I am inclined to exclude consciousness from direct cause-and-effect relationships, at least until proven otherwise.😁
To be fair, I exclude certain factors from my analysis of cause and effect. 😁

Mark Torres14 said:Respect. You're a genius. My hero.🙏

If existence is what it is, then He definitely exists.
Actually, I think it’s exactly the opposite. I don't see why being "one" or "unified" makes any sense here. If everything was just one single, identical thing, how on earth would you get any variety out of it? How could diversity even exist if there wasn't anything different to start with? 🤷
If being is simply what it is, then that’s plenty. Take material reality—that's being. It just exists. And maybe the reason it "is" comes down to nothing more than the laws of nature.

Why one instead of many? I don't think there’s some deep logical explanation for it. Honestly, it’s just a matter of aesthetics.
It seems like certain ways of being right just feel good to us—maybe even instinctive. Why? Because we’re the only ones who actually stop to ask, "Is there a soul?"

I haven't found any consensus on the nature of human consciousness or what actually triggers it. There’s zero agreement in the natural sciences, and frankly, nobody has even come close to fully mastering the subject.
It’s always been like this. Maybe it's because it hits people on such a personal level, so it stayed buried in the realm of faith and religious dogma. Biology and psychology mostly just stick to how things work on the surface; they rarely bother questioning the actual root cause.

You didn't find any consensus because human consciousness is incredibly complex. You can't just take mathematical tools—which work fine for physical matter—and expect them to spit out an absolute truth about consciousness like they would for some simple equation.
But look, you’ve got philosophy, history, sociology, psychology, psychiatry... all these scientific disciplines that either directly or indirectly dig into what human consciousness actually is and how it reacts to objective reality.

What do you actually think about consciousness? Where does it come from, and what even is it?

I don't know. 🤷I’m right there with Kant. It's the one thing you can't pin down with a simple cause-and-effect chain. It just has this transcendent, intrinsic character that defies explanation.

I believe so. When it comes to metaphysical problems, I usually tackle them using scientific facts mixed with a philosophical mindset. Even then, my knowledge is pretty limited and modest. If I try to factor in consciousness too, my own ambition will just land me in way over my head.
First, I try to wrap my head around things within one specific field. Once I actually get that down, then—and only then—do I even attempt to bridge everything together into one big picture.

The reality today is that being a true polymath is basically impossible. You can't possibly wrap your head around every field of human interest anymore. Even within a single niche, the flood of data, papers, and experiments is so overwhelming that we have scientists who specialize in just one tiny, microscopic sliver of their own field.
That’s why if you’re actually trying to learn, you should never be ashamed of what you don't know. The real trouble starts when someone thinks they've mastered everything and tries to force their "expertise" on others through sheer physical or mental bullying.

Agreed. Though, there are certain topics I simply don't bother with. My previous points weren't intended as permanent or unconditional stances. Sometimes it feels like learning something new is just a process of dismantling old delusions. I rarely drift into grand theories unless I'm strictly speculating. On this forum, I prefer to write about what I hold as conviction rather than just reciting data.
Because of that, I believe logic remains the single best and most versatile investment one can make. 🙂

Mark Torres14 said:Look at a real-world example. Imagine you see a Ford Mustang, but you have zero clue how it actually functions or what it's even for. You take it apart, piece by piece, and use your tools—math, measurements, whatever—to figure out exactly what every single part does and how it connects to the next.
Here's the kicker: once you understand those individual parts and how they work, can you finally wrap your head around how the car operates and what its purpose is?

Why are there so many? Well, looking at the sheer diversity of the world, you could argue "that's just how it is." 🙂
Then there's the graviton problem. Like I said before, the universe is made of particles that constitute matter and particles that drive interactions. Since there are four fundamental forces, each one has its own particle responsible for the interaction. For gravity, that's the graviton. "Inventing" it really just means assuming it exists.
It might be more accurate to say that space-time geometry is a consequence of gravity. Though, let's be honest, gravity is the most problematic of the four forces, even if it's the one we've known about the longest.
(We could go down a rabbit hole here regarding the scientific method. You know, what constitutes knowledge of nature vs. just a model, or a model that describes nature without being identical to it, and so on.)

We're philosophers here. We're hunting for essence—the common thread running through all of reality.
Either we accept that essence doesn't exist, or we admit there are multiple different essences.
A chaotic zoo of different essences doesn't look beautiful, elegant, or even accurate to me.
That's just my take, though. No scientific proof to back it up.

I agree, but generally speaking, we know too little about it to incorporate it into most models. Without any leaning toward various creators, it remains one of those mysteries that leaves me stumped. 😁

Why do you think we know so little? A mystery might be a starting point, but everything after that has been pretty thoroughly handled by science.
But just as string theory tries to bridge Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics, it's the job of philosophy to bring consciousness into the equation.

I can. 🙂

Mark Torres14 said:Look at a real-world example. Imagine you see a Ford Mustang, but you have zero clue how it actually functions or what it's even for. You take it apart, piece by piece, and use your tools—math, measurements, whatever—to figure out exactly what every single part does and how it connects to the next.
Here's the kicker: once you understand those individual parts and how they work, can you finally wrap your head around how the car operates and what its purpose is?

Why are there so many? Well, looking at the sheer diversity of the world, you could argue "that's just how it is." 🙂
Then there's the graviton problem. Like I said before, the universe is made of particles that constitute matter and particles that drive interactions. Since there are four fundamental forces, each one has its own particle responsible for the interaction. For gravity, that's the graviton. "Inventing" it really just means assuming it exists.
It might be more accurate to say that space-time geometry is a consequence of gravity. Though, let's be honest, gravity is the most problematic of the four forces, even if it's the one we've known about the longest.
(We could go down a rabbit hole here regarding the scientific method. You know, what constitutes knowledge of nature vs. just a model, or a model that describes nature without being identical to it, and so on.)

We're philosophers here. We're hunting for essence—the common thread running through all of reality.
Either we accept that essence doesn't exist, or we admit there are multiple different essences.
A chaotic zoo of different essences doesn't look beautiful, elegant, or even accurate to me.
That's just my take, though. No scientific proof to back it up.

I agree, but generally speaking, we know too little about it to incorporate it into most models. Without any leaning toward various creators, it remains one of those mysteries that leaves me stumped. 😁

Why do you think we know so little? A mystery might be a starting point, but everything after that has been pretty thoroughly handled by science.
But just as string theory tries to bridge Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics, it's the job of philosophy to bring consciousness into the equation.

If Being is what it is, then it certainly exists.
But I cannot fathom why Being would be singular, unique, or one. How could diversity in reality evolve from a single, unified Being? 🤷
If Being is what it is, that is sufficient. For instance, material reality is Being. It simply is. Perhaps its very essence lies in the laws of nature.

Mark Torres14 said:Look at a real-world example. Imagine you see a Ford Mustang, but you have zero clue how it actually functions or what it's even for. You take it apart, piece by piece, and use your tools—math, measurements, whatever—to figure out exactly what every single part does and how it connects to the next.
Here's the kicker: once you understand those individual parts and how they work, can you finally wrap your head around how the car operates and what its purpose is?

Why are there so many? Well, looking at the sheer diversity of the world, you could argue "that's just how it is." 🙂
Then there's the graviton problem. Like I said before, the universe is made of particles that constitute matter and particles that drive interactions. Since there are four fundamental forces, each one has its own particle responsible for the interaction. For gravity, that's the graviton. "Inventing" it really just means assuming it exists.
It might be more accurate to say that space-time geometry is a consequence of gravity. Though, let's be honest, gravity is the most problematic of the four forces, even if it's the one we've known about the longest.
(We could go down a rabbit hole here regarding the scientific method. You know, what constitutes knowledge of nature vs. just a model, or a model that describes nature without being identical to it, and so on.)

We're philosophers here. We're hunting for essence—the common thread running through all of reality.
Either we accept that essence doesn't exist, or we admit there are multiple different essences.
A chaotic zoo of different essences doesn't look beautiful, elegant, or even accurate to me.
That's just my take, though. No scientific proof to back it up.

I agree, but generally speaking, we know too little about it to incorporate it into most models. Without any leaning toward various creators, it remains one of those mysteries that leaves me stumped. 😁

Why do you think we know so little? A mystery might be a starting point, but everything after that has been pretty thoroughly handled by science.
But just as string theory tries to bridge Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics, it's the job of philosophy to bring consciousness into the equation.

Regarding human consciousness—its nature and its causes—I haven't found consensus in the natural sciences, nor have I found it studied with such depth.
It has always remained, perhaps due to its direct impact on people, in the realm of belief, religious worldviews, and the like. Biology and psychology tend to focus on how it functions, rarely questioning the underlying cause itself.
What is your take on consciousness? What is it, and where does it come from?

Mark Torres14 said:Look at a real-world example. Imagine you see a Ford Mustang, but you have zero clue how it actually functions or what it's even for. You take it apart, piece by piece, and use your tools—math, measurements, whatever—to figure out exactly what every single part does and how it connects to the next.
Here's the kicker: once you understand those individual parts and how they work, can you finally wrap your head around how the car operates and what its purpose is?

Why are there so many? Well, looking at the sheer diversity of the world, you could argue "that's just how it is." 🙂
Then there's the graviton problem. Like I said before, the universe is made of particles that constitute matter and particles that drive interactions. Since there are four fundamental forces, each one has its own particle responsible for the interaction. For gravity, that's the graviton. "Inventing" it really just means assuming it exists.
It might be more accurate to say that space-time geometry is a consequence of gravity. Though, let's be honest, gravity is the most problematic of the four forces, even if it's the one we've known about the longest.
(We could go down a rabbit hole here regarding the scientific method. You know, what constitutes knowledge of nature vs. just a model, or a model that describes nature without being identical to it, and so on.)

We're philosophers here. We're hunting for essence—the common thread running through all of reality.
Either we accept that essence doesn't exist, or we admit there are multiple different essences.
A chaotic zoo of different essences doesn't look beautiful, elegant, or even accurate to me.
That's just my take, though. No scientific proof to back it up.

I agree, but generally speaking, we know too little about it to incorporate it into most models. Without any leaning toward various creators, it remains one of those mysteries that leaves me stumped. 😁

Why do you think we know so little? A mystery might be a starting point, but everything after that has been pretty thoroughly handled by science.
But just as string theory tries to bridge Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics, it's the job of philosophy to bring consciousness into the equation.

I believe it is. However, I approach metaphysical questions using scientific facts tempered by a philosophical spirit. Even then, my knowledge remains limited and modest. If I attempt to factor in consciousness, my own ambition will likely lead me into trouble.
Initially, I focus on understanding things within the confines of a single discipline. Once mastered, only then do I attempt to synthesize everything into a cohesive whole.

Mark Torres14 said:I’d just ask "why" again, and we could go in circles forever. Still, my answer is tied to the response below.

I don't get the point of the question. 🤷
What does "emergent" even mean?

The principle of emergence is pretty much like holism. It means you can't grasp the whole thing, even if you fully understand every single individual part. Or, the whole thing produces a brand new quality that isn't present in any of its separate components.

Why is that weird to you?
The macro world is a combination of so many different factors that it's impossible to find two identical systems. Yet, all systems are ultimately made of similar building blocks.
It's like asking—how many different paintings can you make using the same set of colors?
Besides, that variety also points to a kind of chaos, not randomness.

Fine. I can wrap my head around the idea that in this zoo of various particles, we've reached the fundamental pieces of matter that can't be split further.
But, for God's sake, why are there so many, and why are they so different from one another? Why do we have to invent some hypothetical "graviton" particle when Einstein already explained gravity so beautifully as a geometric property of space?

I have this annoying habit of leaving "conscious matter" out of discussions like this. 😁

Why? We're philosophizing here, so we have to consider everything. A physicist might just beat their brains against dead matter, but in our debates—even when discussing natural laws, randomness, or impermanence—we absolutely have to factor in consciousness. It's undeniably part of reality and plays a role in it.

No, that isn't determinism. It seems I have a different definition of randomness. Specifically, I distinguish between randomness and situations that are their own cause.
And I added later that there's a set of possibilities that simply cannot happen, and I also noted at the start that I don't believe in a world created without a creator existing above the level of that world.

I agree. We just view randomness differently. That's fine, ultimately. But give me just one example of a situation that is its own cause.

Transience: the way physical reality shifts its shape and form through time and space.
(Just a thought—I might even change my mind about this in five minutes.)

Solid definition.👍

Why? Either by the will of the Creator or through the mechanics of nature. Look, reality might function like a mathematical fractal, or it could have been different—laws of physics aren't set in stone. I don't know. Answering "why" matters, but I believe we must understand "how" things work before we can claim to know why. We don't have a reliable grasp on the "how" yet.

I contend that material reality is not emergent. We may fail to comprehend it through simple induction or deduction at times, but ultimately, everything is reducible to its component parts.

Mark Torres14 said:I’d just ask "why" again, and we could go in circles forever. Still, my answer is tied to the response below.

I don't get the point of the question. 🤷
What does "emergent" even mean?

The principle of emergence is pretty much like holism. It means you can't grasp the whole thing, even if you fully understand every single individual part. Or, the whole thing produces a brand new quality that isn't present in any of its separate components.

Why is that weird to you?
The macro world is a combination of so many different factors that it's impossible to find two identical systems. Yet, all systems are ultimately made of similar building blocks.
It's like asking—how many different paintings can you make using the same set of colors?
Besides, that variety also points to a kind of chaos, not randomness.

Fine. I can wrap my head around the idea that in this zoo of various particles, we've reached the fundamental pieces of matter that can't be split further.
But, for God's sake, why are there so many, and why are they so different from one another? Why do we have to invent some hypothetical "graviton" particle when Einstein already explained gravity so beautifully as a geometric property of space?

I have this annoying habit of leaving "conscious matter" out of discussions like this. 😁

Why? We're philosophizing here, so we have to consider everything. A physicist might just beat their brains against dead matter, but in our debates—even when discussing natural laws, randomness, or impermanence—we absolutely have to factor in consciousness. It's undeniably part of reality and plays a role in it.

No, that isn't determinism. It seems I have a different definition of randomness. Specifically, I distinguish between randomness and situations that are their own cause.
And I added later that there's a set of possibilities that simply cannot happen, and I also noted at the start that I don't believe in a world created without a creator existing above the level of that world.

I agree. We just view randomness differently. That's fine, ultimately. But give me just one example of a situation that is its own cause.

Transience: the way physical reality shifts its shape and form through time and space.
(Just a thought—I might even change my mind about this in five minutes.)

Solid definition.👍

Why so many? Given the sheer diversity of the world, one could simply say, "that's just how it is." 🙂
Regarding the graviton problem: as I noted earlier, the universe consists of particles that make up matter and those that mediate interactions. Since there are four fundamental forces, each requires its own mediating particle. In the case of gravity, that's the graviton. "Inventing" here is just a way of saying we assume its existence.
It might be more accurate to say that spatial geometry is a consequence of gravity. Though, despite being the most well-known, gravity remains the most problematic of the four forces.
(A separate debate could be held regarding the scientific method. Specifically, what constitutes knowledge of nature, what qualifies as a model, and whether a model describing nature can ever truly be identical to it.

Mark Torres14 said:I’d just ask "why" again, and we could go in circles forever. Still, my answer is tied to the response below.

I don't get the point of the question. 🤷
What does "emergent" even mean?

The principle of emergence is pretty much like holism. It means you can't grasp the whole thing, even if you fully understand every single individual part. Or, the whole thing produces a brand new quality that isn't present in any of its separate components.

Why is that weird to you?
The macro world is a combination of so many different factors that it's impossible to find two identical systems. Yet, all systems are ultimately made of similar building blocks.
It's like asking—how many different paintings can you make using the same set of colors?
Besides, that variety also points to a kind of chaos, not randomness.

Fine. I can wrap my head around the idea that in this zoo of various particles, we've reached the fundamental pieces of matter that can't be split further.
But, for God's sake, why are there so many, and why are they so different from one another? Why do we have to invent some hypothetical "graviton" particle when Einstein already explained gravity so beautifully as a geometric property of space?

I have this annoying habit of leaving "conscious matter" out of discussions like this. 😁

Why? We're philosophizing here, so we have to consider everything. A physicist might just beat their brains against dead matter, but in our debates—even when discussing natural laws, randomness, or impermanence—we absolutely have to factor in consciousness. It's undeniably part of reality and plays a role in it.

No, that isn't determinism. It seems I have a different definition of randomness. Specifically, I distinguish between randomness and situations that are their own cause.
And I added later that there's a set of possibilities that simply cannot happen, and I also noted at the start that I don't believe in a world created without a creator existing above the level of that world.

I agree. We just view randomness differently. That's fine, ultimately. But give me just one example of a situation that is its own cause.

Transience: the way physical reality shifts its shape and form through time and space.
(Just a thought—I might even change my mind about this in five minutes.)

Solid definition.👍

Agreed, but we simply don't know enough about her to integrate her into most models. Setting aside any bias toward various creators, she remains a mystery I haven't figured out how to handle yet. 😁

Mark Torres14 said:I’d just ask "why" again, and we could go in circles forever. Still, my answer is tied to the response below.

I don't get the point of the question. 🤷
What does "emergent" even mean?

The principle of emergence is pretty much like holism. It means you can't grasp the whole thing, even if you fully understand every single individual part. Or, the whole thing produces a brand new quality that isn't present in any of its separate components.

Why is that weird to you?
The macro world is a combination of so many different factors that it's impossible to find two identical systems. Yet, all systems are ultimately made of similar building blocks.
It's like asking—how many different paintings can you make using the same set of colors?
Besides, that variety also points to a kind of chaos, not randomness.

Fine. I can wrap my head around the idea that in this zoo of various particles, we've reached the fundamental pieces of matter that can't be split further.
But, for God's sake, why are there so many, and why are they so different from one another? Why do we have to invent some hypothetical "graviton" particle when Einstein already explained gravity so beautifully as a geometric property of space?

I have this annoying habit of leaving "conscious matter" out of discussions like this. 😁

Why? We're philosophizing here, so we have to consider everything. A physicist might just beat their brains against dead matter, but in our debates—even when discussing natural laws, randomness, or impermanence—we absolutely have to factor in consciousness. It's undeniably part of reality and plays a role in it.

No, that isn't determinism. It seems I have a different definition of randomness. Specifically, I distinguish between randomness and situations that are their own cause.
And I added later that there's a set of possibilities that simply cannot happen, and I also noted at the start that I don't believe in a world created without a creator existing above the level of that world.

I agree. We just view randomness differently. That's fine, ultimately. But give me just one example of a situation that is its own cause.

Transience: the way physical reality shifts its shape and form through time and space.
(Just a thought—I might even change my mind about this in five minutes.)

Solid definition.👍

I can't name one. 🙂
Maybe creating energy from a vacuum, but that's pure speculation. My answer stands: I don't know of a single one.

Mark Torres14 said:I’d just ask "why" again, and we could go in circles forever. Still, my answer is tied to the response below.

I don't get the point of the question. 🤷
What does "emergent" even mean?

The principle of emergence is pretty much like holism. It means you can't grasp the whole thing, even if you fully understand every single individual part. Or, the whole thing produces a brand new quality that isn't present in any of its separate components.

Why is that weird to you?
The macro world is a combination of so many different factors that it's impossible to find two identical systems. Yet, all systems are ultimately made of similar building blocks.
It's like asking—how many different paintings can you make using the same set of colors?
Besides, that variety also points to a kind of chaos, not randomness.

Fine. I can wrap my head around the idea that in this zoo of various particles, we've reached the fundamental pieces of matter that can't be split further.
But, for God's sake, why are there so many, and why are they so different from one another? Why do we have to invent some hypothetical "graviton" particle when Einstein already explained gravity so beautifully as a geometric property of space?

I have this annoying habit of leaving "conscious matter" out of discussions like this. 😁

Why? We're philosophizing here, so we have to consider everything. A physicist might just beat their brains against dead matter, but in our debates—even when discussing natural laws, randomness, or impermanence—we absolutely have to factor in consciousness. It's undeniably part of reality and plays a role in it.

No, that isn't determinism. It seems I have a different definition of randomness. Specifically, I distinguish between randomness and situations that are their own cause.
And I added later that there's a set of possibilities that simply cannot happen, and I also noted at the start that I don't believe in a world created without a creator existing above the level of that world.

I agree. We just view randomness differently. That's fine, ultimately. But give me just one example of a situation that is its own cause.

Transience: the way physical reality shifts its shape and form through time and space.
(Just a thought—I might even change my mind about this in five minutes.)

Solid definition.👍

Thanks. Looking at it now, it doesn't seem half bad. 😁

Mark Torres14 said:But what defines a "fundamental" level? What's the lowest possible baseline? You should probably have some criteria for that. Why pick a single particle?
If we only knew about electrons, protons, and neutrons, but had zero clue what an atom was, could we actually calculate that an atom exists just by looking at those particles? Or is that purely emergent?
And how can it be random?
Take an electron—it doesn't exist in a vacuum; there are multiple electrons. They all behave identically. If even one of them were truly random, they wouldn't be identical.
In the macro world, nothing is ever exactly the same, yet in the micro world, everything is identical. Isn't that weird?

What is conscious matter? 🤷

Us.

Let's go back to basics. Like I said, I don't view randomness as a specific outcome, but rather as a set of possible outcomes.

That statistical aspect isn't caused by our ignorance; it's due to inherent uncertainty.
Think about balancing a ball on your fingertip. You don't always know which way it'll tip. But you definitely know the factors influencing its fall. You also know it won't suddenly land on top of a skyscraper if you aren't standing on one.

At the subatomic level, things can be random and totally unpredictable. Yet, an electron isn't going to just pop up 62 miles out of nowhere randomly.
(Meaning, I don't believe in effects appearing without causes. Though, the whole idea of something coming from nothingness could be its own debate, but let's save that for later.)

Actually, what you're describing is determinism, not randomness. It’s a bit fuzzy, wrapped in cellophane or whatever... but it’s still determinism. True randomness means no cause at all. Show me something that moves entirely on its own. If that existed, natural laws wouldn't exist.

Why isn't impermanence the opposite of permanence?
I get the feeling your take on transience here is a bit too abstract for me to follow. 😁

Let's break down transience. It implies something comes into being, lasts for a while, and then vanishes. When you look around, the entire world is transient. I realize it’s still on the edge of what we can prove, but it follows that our universes, space, motion, and time are all transient too.
Impermanence is impossible. Give me one single thing that is permanent.

The absolute minimum spatial requirement.
Why couldn't it be a particle—or a wave? Based on our current understanding, the evidence points strongly in that direction. As I noted before, the data supports this.

Mark Torres14 said:But what defines a "fundamental" level? What's the lowest possible baseline? You should probably have some criteria for that. Why pick a single particle?
If we only knew about electrons, protons, and neutrons, but had zero clue what an atom was, could we actually calculate that an atom exists just by looking at those particles? Or is that purely emergent?
And how can it be random?
Take an electron—it doesn't exist in a vacuum; there are multiple electrons. They all behave identically. If even one of them were truly random, they wouldn't be identical.
In the macro world, nothing is ever exactly the same, yet in the micro world, everything is identical. Isn't that weird?

What is conscious matter? 🤷

Us.

Let's go back to basics. Like I said, I don't view randomness as a specific outcome, but rather as a set of possible outcomes.

That statistical aspect isn't caused by our ignorance; it's due to inherent uncertainty.
Think about balancing a ball on your fingertip. You don't always know which way it'll tip. But you definitely know the factors influencing its fall. You also know it won't suddenly land on top of a skyscraper if you aren't standing on one.

At the subatomic level, things can be random and totally unpredictable. Yet, an electron isn't going to just pop up 62 miles out of nowhere randomly.
(Meaning, I don't believe in effects appearing without causes. Though, the whole idea of something coming from nothingness could be its own debate, but let's save that for later.)

Actually, what you're describing is determinism, not randomness. It’s a bit fuzzy, wrapped in cellophane or whatever... but it’s still determinism. True randomness means no cause at all. Show me something that moves entirely on its own. If that existed, natural laws wouldn't exist.

Why isn't impermanence the opposite of permanence?
I get the feeling your take on transience here is a bit too abstract for me to follow. 😁

Let's break down transience. It implies something comes into being, lasts for a while, and then vanishes. When you look around, the entire world is transient. I realize it’s still on the edge of what we can prove, but it follows that our universes, space, motion, and time are all transient too.
Impermanence is impossible. Give me one single thing that is permanent.

I don't see the point of the question. 🤷
What does "emergent" actually mean?

Mark Torres14 said:But what defines a "fundamental" level? What's the lowest possible baseline? You should probably have some criteria for that. Why pick a single particle?
If we only knew about electrons, protons, and neutrons, but had zero clue what an atom was, could we actually calculate that an atom exists just by looking at those particles? Or is that purely emergent?
And how can it be random?
Take an electron—it doesn't exist in a vacuum; there are multiple electrons. They all behave identically. If even one of them were truly random, they wouldn't be identical.
In the macro world, nothing is ever exactly the same, yet in the micro world, everything is identical. Isn't that weird?

What is conscious matter? 🤷

Us.

Let's go back to basics. Like I said, I don't view randomness as a specific outcome, but rather as a set of possible outcomes.

That statistical aspect isn't caused by our ignorance; it's due to inherent uncertainty.
Think about balancing a ball on your fingertip. You don't always know which way it'll tip. But you definitely know the factors influencing its fall. You also know it won't suddenly land on top of a skyscraper if you aren't standing on one.

At the subatomic level, things can be random and totally unpredictable. Yet, an electron isn't going to just pop up 62 miles out of nowhere randomly.
(Meaning, I don't believe in effects appearing without causes. Though, the whole idea of something coming from nothingness could be its own debate, but let's save that for later.)

Actually, what you're describing is determinism, not randomness. It’s a bit fuzzy, wrapped in cellophane or whatever... but it’s still determinism. True randomness means no cause at all. Show me something that moves entirely on its own. If that existed, natural laws wouldn't exist.

Why isn't impermanence the opposite of permanence?
I get the feeling your take on transience here is a bit too abstract for me to follow. 😁

Let's break down transience. It implies something comes into being, lasts for a while, and then vanishes. When you look around, the entire world is transient. I realize it’s still on the edge of what we can prove, but it follows that our universes, space, motion, and time are all transient too.
Impermanence is impossible. Give me one single thing that is permanent.

I don't buy the "coincidence" argument. Based on everything we know—both experimentally and theoretically—it’s being forced. It's clearly intentional. And there is absolutely no basis for comparing its behavior to anything you'd see in the macro world.

Mark Torres14 said:But what defines a "fundamental" level? What's the lowest possible baseline? You should probably have some criteria for that. Why pick a single particle?
If we only knew about electrons, protons, and neutrons, but had zero clue what an atom was, could we actually calculate that an atom exists just by looking at those particles? Or is that purely emergent?
And how can it be random?
Take an electron—it doesn't exist in a vacuum; there are multiple electrons. They all behave identically. If even one of them were truly random, they wouldn't be identical.
In the macro world, nothing is ever exactly the same, yet in the micro world, everything is identical. Isn't that weird?

What is conscious matter? 🤷

Us.

Let's go back to basics. Like I said, I don't view randomness as a specific outcome, but rather as a set of possible outcomes.

That statistical aspect isn't caused by our ignorance; it's due to inherent uncertainty.
Think about balancing a ball on your fingertip. You don't always know which way it'll tip. But you definitely know the factors influencing its fall. You also know it won't suddenly land on top of a skyscraper if you aren't standing on one.

At the subatomic level, things can be random and totally unpredictable. Yet, an electron isn't going to just pop up 62 miles out of nowhere randomly.
(Meaning, I don't believe in effects appearing without causes. Though, the whole idea of something coming from nothingness could be its own debate, but let's save that for later.)

Actually, what you're describing is determinism, not randomness. It’s a bit fuzzy, wrapped in cellophane or whatever... but it’s still determinism. True randomness means no cause at all. Show me something that moves entirely on its own. If that existed, natural laws wouldn't exist.

Why isn't impermanence the opposite of permanence?
I get the feeling your take on transience here is a bit too abstract for me to follow. 😁

Let's break down transience. It implies something comes into being, lasts for a while, and then vanishes. When you look around, the entire world is transient. I realize it’s still on the edge of what we can prove, but it follows that our universes, space, motion, and time are all transient too.
Impermanence is impossible. Give me one single thing that is permanent.

Why do you find that strange?
The macro world is a chaotic mess of variables. Finding two identical systems is an impossibility. Yet, at their core, all systems are built from the same fundamental components.
It’s a fair question. How many distinct paintings can actually be produced using the exact same palette?
That diversity points toward chaos rather than mere coincidence.

Mark Torres14 said:But what defines a "fundamental" level? What's the lowest possible baseline? You should probably have some criteria for that. Why pick a single particle?
If we only knew about electrons, protons, and neutrons, but had zero clue what an atom was, could we actually calculate that an atom exists just by looking at those particles? Or is that purely emergent?
And how can it be random?
Take an electron—it doesn't exist in a vacuum; there are multiple electrons. They all behave identically. If even one of them were truly random, they wouldn't be identical.
In the macro world, nothing is ever exactly the same, yet in the micro world, everything is identical. Isn't that weird?

What is conscious matter? 🤷

Us.

Let's go back to basics. Like I said, I don't view randomness as a specific outcome, but rather as a set of possible outcomes.

That statistical aspect isn't caused by our ignorance; it's due to inherent uncertainty.
Think about balancing a ball on your fingertip. You don't always know which way it'll tip. But you definitely know the factors influencing its fall. You also know it won't suddenly land on top of a skyscraper if you aren't standing on one.

At the subatomic level, things can be random and totally unpredictable. Yet, an electron isn't going to just pop up 62 miles out of nowhere randomly.
(Meaning, I don't believe in effects appearing without causes. Though, the whole idea of something coming from nothingness could be its own debate, but let's save that for later.)

Actually, what you're describing is determinism, not randomness. It’s a bit fuzzy, wrapped in cellophane or whatever... but it’s still determinism. True randomness means no cause at all. Show me something that moves entirely on its own. If that existed, natural laws wouldn't exist.

Why isn't impermanence the opposite of permanence?
I get the feeling your take on transience here is a bit too abstract for me to follow. 😁

Let's break down transience. It implies something comes into being, lasts for a while, and then vanishes. When you look around, the entire world is transient. I realize it’s still on the edge of what we can prove, but it follows that our universes, space, motion, and time are all transient too.
Impermanence is impossible. Give me one single thing that is permanent.

I have a bad habit of stripping "conscious matter" out of debates like this. 😁

Mark Torres14 said:But what defines a "fundamental" level? What's the lowest possible baseline? You should probably have some criteria for that. Why pick a single particle?
If we only knew about electrons, protons, and neutrons, but had zero clue what an atom was, could we actually calculate that an atom exists just by looking at those particles? Or is that purely emergent?
And how can it be random?
Take an electron—it doesn't exist in a vacuum; there are multiple electrons. They all behave identically. If even one of them were truly random, they wouldn't be identical.
In the macro world, nothing is ever exactly the same, yet in the micro world, everything is identical. Isn't that weird?

What is conscious matter? 🤷

Us.

Let's go back to basics. Like I said, I don't view randomness as a specific outcome, but rather as a set of possible outcomes.

That statistical aspect isn't caused by our ignorance; it's due to inherent uncertainty.
Think about balancing a ball on your fingertip. You don't always know which way it'll tip. But you definitely know the factors influencing its fall. You also know it won't suddenly land on top of a skyscraper if you aren't standing on one.

At the subatomic level, things can be random and totally unpredictable. Yet, an electron isn't going to just pop up 62 miles out of nowhere randomly.
(Meaning, I don't believe in effects appearing without causes. Though, the whole idea of something coming from nothingness could be its own debate, but let's save that for later.)

Actually, what you're describing is determinism, not randomness. It’s a bit fuzzy, wrapped in cellophane or whatever... but it’s still determinism. True randomness means no cause at all. Show me something that moves entirely on its own. If that existed, natural laws wouldn't exist.

Why isn't impermanence the opposite of permanence?
I get the feeling your take on transience here is a bit too abstract for me to follow. 😁

Let's break down transience. It implies something comes into being, lasts for a while, and then vanishes. When you look around, the entire world is transient. I realize it’s still on the edge of what we can prove, but it follows that our universes, space, motion, and time are all transient too.
Impermanence is impossible. Give me one single thing that is permanent.

No, that isn't determinism. I seem to be using a different formula for randomness. Specifically, I distinguish between true randomness and situations that act as their own cause.
I later added that there exists a set of possibilities that simply cannot occur, and initially, I just noted my lack of belief in a created world that lacks a creator existing above the level of the world itself.

Mark Torres14 said:But what defines a "fundamental" level? What's the lowest possible baseline? You should probably have some criteria for that. Why pick a single particle?
If we only knew about electrons, protons, and neutrons, but had zero clue what an atom was, could we actually calculate that an atom exists just by looking at those particles? Or is that purely emergent?
And how can it be random?
Take an electron—it doesn't exist in a vacuum; there are multiple electrons. They all behave identically. If even one of them were truly random, they wouldn't be identical.
In the macro world, nothing is ever exactly the same, yet in the micro world, everything is identical. Isn't that weird?

What is conscious matter? 🤷

Us.

Let's go back to basics. Like I said, I don't view randomness as a specific outcome, but rather as a set of possible outcomes.

That statistical aspect isn't caused by our ignorance; it's due to inherent uncertainty.
Think about balancing a ball on your fingertip. You don't always know which way it'll tip. But you definitely know the factors influencing its fall. You also know it won't suddenly land on top of a skyscraper if you aren't standing on one.

At the subatomic level, things can be random and totally unpredictable. Yet, an electron isn't going to just pop up 62 miles out of nowhere randomly.
(Meaning, I don't believe in effects appearing without causes. Though, the whole idea of something coming from nothingness could be its own debate, but let's save that for later.)

Actually, what you're describing is determinism, not randomness. It’s a bit fuzzy, wrapped in cellophane or whatever... but it’s still determinism. True randomness means no cause at all. Show me something that moves entirely on its own. If that existed, natural laws wouldn't exist.

Why isn't impermanence the opposite of permanence?
I get the feeling your take on transience here is a bit too abstract for me to follow. 😁

Let's break down transience. It implies something comes into being, lasts for a while, and then vanishes. When you look around, the entire world is transient. I realize it’s still on the edge of what we can prove, but it follows that our universes, space, motion, and time are all transient too.
Impermanence is impossible. Give me one single thing that is permanent.

Agreed. But if we return to the premise that the world was created—something created it.
If it was created, and it truly aligns with the reality of the Big Bang, then it won't just vanish on its own. It could only vanish via an outside intervention that erases it.
Matter itself, as we know it, won't decide to cease to exist of its own volition.

On the other hand, there is the model I gave a slight edge to at the start: the model without a beginning. In that model, transience exists—it's obvious everywhere. Things arise and pass away. But it has been happening forever and will continue to happen. Much like the style of Heraclitus. 😁

For example, transience: the property of material reality where it changes form and shape within time and space.
(That just occurred to me; in a few minutes, I might not even agree with myself on this.)

Mark Torres14 said:What exactly do you mean by "fundamental level"? Are we talking about some underlying subspace that our reality is built on, or just the core concepts like gravity, time, space, and motion?
Does that baseline level actually include conscious matter?

Maybe when an electron is orbiting a nucleus in an isolated atom, there really aren't any other mechanisms dictating its path. But let's not get bogged down in the weeds. I just want to say this: randomness can actually be a part of order.
Maybe it’s not the perfect analogy, but look at any pro sport. There are rules on the books, sure, but every single game plays out differently depending on the variables.

There’s a massive difference between a fluke and actual possibility. To me, coincidence feels like straight-up sorcery. One second there's nothing, then—poof—something appears out of thin air. Then just as fast? Poof. Gone.
Honestly, there's nothing else like it in the world.
The only place that actually exists is in the mind. And again, that definitely isn't some accident or just random chance. But it isn't determinism either.😕🤷

Here’s a theory for you. We know that at the dawn of the universe, conditions were absolutely insane, and the stuff happening was just as wild. If those force-carrying particles could actually change their properties over time, then the laws of physics might not be set in stone either. They could change too.
I don't know if that's actually the case, but based on what I know, I’m betting it is.
Another way this could happen is through some kind of outside "intervention," but I don't buy it. Honestly, I think that’s impossible.

I'm with you on that.

I’ve been chewing on this, but I can't wrap my head around how transience actually works. Can the property of passing just "pass" through some other kind of passing? If that's the case, we're staring down the same old "first cause" trap, just applied to a sample of the future. Basically—what comes last?

Maybe it’s because we approach language through this dualistic lens. "Transience" is just one of those words that doesn't have a real equivalent. "Permanence" isn't actually the opposite of transience—it’s more like a frozen reality where duration simply doesn't exist.
Take gravity, for instance. The opposite is anti-gravity. Everything else stays exactly the same.
That’s exactly why transience—since it doesn't have a negative counterpart—should be treated as something fleeting.

The physical fundamental level.
Specifically, the behavior of the smallest possible unit of matter—something that doesn't depend on its constituent parts. It can be stochastic.

Mark Torres14 said:What exactly do you mean by "fundamental level"? Are we talking about some underlying subspace that our reality is built on, or just the core concepts like gravity, time, space, and motion?
Does that baseline level actually include conscious matter?

Maybe when an electron is orbiting a nucleus in an isolated atom, there really aren't any other mechanisms dictating its path. But let's not get bogged down in the weeds. I just want to say this: randomness can actually be a part of order.
Maybe it’s not the perfect analogy, but look at any pro sport. There are rules on the books, sure, but every single game plays out differently depending on the variables.

There’s a massive difference between a fluke and actual possibility. To me, coincidence feels like straight-up sorcery. One second there's nothing, then—poof—something appears out of thin air. Then just as fast? Poof. Gone.
Honestly, there's nothing else like it in the world.
The only place that actually exists is in the mind. And again, that definitely isn't some accident or just random chance. But it isn't determinism either.😕🤷

Here’s a theory for you. We know that at the dawn of the universe, conditions were absolutely insane, and the stuff happening was just as wild. If those force-carrying particles could actually change their properties over time, then the laws of physics might not be set in stone either. They could change too.
I don't know if that's actually the case, but based on what I know, I’m betting it is.
Another way this could happen is through some kind of outside "intervention," but I don't buy it. Honestly, I think that’s impossible.

I'm with you on that.

I’ve been chewing on this, but I can't wrap my head around how transience actually works. Can the property of passing just "pass" through some other kind of passing? If that's the case, we're staring down the same old "first cause" trap, just applied to a sample of the future. Basically—what comes last?

Maybe it’s because we approach language through this dualistic lens. "Transience" is just one of those words that doesn't have a real equivalent. "Permanence" isn't actually the opposite of transience—it’s more like a frozen reality where duration simply doesn't exist.
Take gravity, for instance. The opposite is anti-gravity. Everything else stays exactly the same.
That’s exactly why transience—since it doesn't have a negative counterpart—should be treated as something fleeting.

Define "conscious matter." 🤷

Mark Torres14 said:What exactly do you mean by "fundamental level"? Are we talking about some underlying subspace that our reality is built on, or just the core concepts like gravity, time, space, and motion?
Does that baseline level actually include conscious matter?

Maybe when an electron is orbiting a nucleus in an isolated atom, there really aren't any other mechanisms dictating its path. But let's not get bogged down in the weeds. I just want to say this: randomness can actually be a part of order.
Maybe it’s not the perfect analogy, but look at any pro sport. There are rules on the books, sure, but every single game plays out differently depending on the variables.

There’s a massive difference between a fluke and actual possibility. To me, coincidence feels like straight-up sorcery. One second there's nothing, then—poof—something appears out of thin air. Then just as fast? Poof. Gone.
Honestly, there's nothing else like it in the world.
The only place that actually exists is in the mind. And again, that definitely isn't some accident or just random chance. But it isn't determinism either.😕🤷

Here’s a theory for you. We know that at the dawn of the universe, conditions were absolutely insane, and the stuff happening was just as wild. If those force-carrying particles could actually change their properties over time, then the laws of physics might not be set in stone either. They could change too.
I don't know if that's actually the case, but based on what I know, I’m betting it is.
Another way this could happen is through some kind of outside "intervention," but I don't buy it. Honestly, I think that’s impossible.

I'm with you on that.

I’ve been chewing on this, but I can't wrap my head around how transience actually works. Can the property of passing just "pass" through some other kind of passing? If that's the case, we're staring down the same old "first cause" trap, just applied to a sample of the future. Basically—what comes last?

Maybe it’s because we approach language through this dualistic lens. "Transience" is just one of those words that doesn't have a real equivalent. "Permanence" isn't actually the opposite of transience—it’s more like a frozen reality where duration simply doesn't exist.
Take gravity, for instance. The opposite is anti-gravity. Everything else stays exactly the same.
That’s exactly why transience—since it doesn't have a negative counterpart—should be treated as something fleeting.

Back to basics. As stated, I don't view randomness as an outcome, but as a set of possibilities.

That statistical element isn't due to ignorance; it's inherent indeterminacy.
Balance a ball on your fingertip. You won't always know which way it falls. But you know exactly what influenced that fall. You also know it won't land on top of a skyscraper unless you're standing on one.

At the subatomic level, things can be random and undetermined. Still, an electron won't just pop up 62 miles out of nowhere.
(Meaning, I don't believe in consequences arising from nothing. Though the concept of something coming from nothing could be a separate discussion. Let's move on.)

Mark Torres14 said:What exactly do you mean by "fundamental level"? Are we talking about some underlying subspace that our reality is built on, or just the core concepts like gravity, time, space, and motion?
Does that baseline level actually include conscious matter?

Maybe when an electron is orbiting a nucleus in an isolated atom, there really aren't any other mechanisms dictating its path. But let's not get bogged down in the weeds. I just want to say this: randomness can actually be a part of order.
Maybe it’s not the perfect analogy, but look at any pro sport. There are rules on the books, sure, but every single game plays out differently depending on the variables.

There’s a massive difference between a fluke and actual possibility. To me, coincidence feels like straight-up sorcery. One second there's nothing, then—poof—something appears out of thin air. Then just as fast? Poof. Gone.
Honestly, there's nothing else like it in the world.
The only place that actually exists is in the mind. And again, that definitely isn't some accident or just random chance. But it isn't determinism either.😕🤷

Here’s a theory for you. We know that at the dawn of the universe, conditions were absolutely insane, and the stuff happening was just as wild. If those force-carrying particles could actually change their properties over time, then the laws of physics might not be set in stone either. They could change too.
I don't know if that's actually the case, but based on what I know, I’m betting it is.
Another way this could happen is through some kind of outside "intervention," but I don't buy it. Honestly, I think that’s impossible.

I'm with you on that.

I’ve been chewing on this, but I can't wrap my head around how transience actually works. Can the property of passing just "pass" through some other kind of passing? If that's the case, we're staring down the same old "first cause" trap, just applied to a sample of the future. Basically—what comes last?

Maybe it’s because we approach language through this dualistic lens. "Transience" is just one of those words that doesn't have a real equivalent. "Permanence" isn't actually the opposite of transience—it’s more like a frozen reality where duration simply doesn't exist.
Take gravity, for instance. The opposite is anti-gravity. Everything else stays exactly the same.
That’s exactly why transience—since it doesn't have a negative counterpart—should be treated as something fleeting.

Why isn't non-transience considered the opposite of transience?
I get the feeling your take on transience here is far too abstract for me to grasp. 😁

Mark Torres14 said:Here you go. [Link]

Look, like I said before, you can look at the issue of laws through two different lenses: either within the context of a created universe or as part of an eternal one.
Let me rephrase the problem.
For example:
Are particle laws—basically the rules governing how particles behave—actually just the end result of their properties? And if so, is that the only possible way they can interact?
Either particles have properties that force them to react in specific ways, or we’re looking at something else entirely. It’s wild—you could have two identical particles interacting in completely different ways just because of how they're tuned. It makes no sense.

One case brings us closer to an eternal universe, while the other points toward a designed one—where a creator sets the gears in motion, lays down the rules like a referee in a ballgame, and just lets the play unfold.
Look, it’s simple: in the first case, the interaction is just a natural byproduct of its properties. In the second, the rules of engagement are hardcoded from the start.

That whole dualism thing goes all the way back to ancient times. At the end of the day, it just brings you right back to the classic "chicken or the egg" dilemma.
But we still haven't touched on why these specific patterns exist—the ones we call the laws of nature. Whether they're just baked-in properties or the result of certain interactions, they all point to one thing: there's no such thing as coincidence. The whole world is deterministic. Period.
Even Kant figured that out. It ate at him—the fact that you can't squeeze metaphysics out of a simple cause-and-effect loop. That’s exactly why he decided it was impossible.

Time to talk more about the second part—let’s look at the physics for a second.
Protons and neutrons aren't just simple particles—they’re built from quarks. We're talking 24 different types in total: 6 distinct "flavors," with three "colors" for each.
In theory, if we could crank up the energy levels in our experiments even higher, we might find out that these particles are actually made of something even smaller. But then again, there’s another side to the theory suggesting this might just be the fundamental breakdown point.

What’s the point of this? All the known particles in the universe fall into two camps: spin-1/2 particles that make up all the actual matter, and spin-0, 1, or 2 particles that just trigger the forces between them. (And honestly, we don't even need to get bogged down in what spin actually is right now.)
There are four fundamental forces in the universe, and they all rely on their own specific force-carrying particles—spin 0, 1, or 2.

Once we move past this point, my knowledge hits a wall. I'm stuck, and honestly, I don't have the answers to the very questions that are driving me crazy.
So, would a universe made up entirely of spin 1/2 elementary particles even work if the strong force was different?🤷

Since I don't believe in any kind of creator, I’d rather just align myself with the eternal universe and its laws. It’s a tough concept to wrap your head around, though—it almost feels contradictory. You still need that split second where particles are basically "thrown" at one another to get things moving.
I get so sucked into the nature of stuff like this that I sometimes don't even care about what's actually accurate.

You’re definitely not alone in being obsessed with how nature works.
Great explanation.

My guess is that the laws themselves stay fixed. Regardless of what they actually are—whether they were imposed on the universe or just emerged from it—their properties aren't going to shift over time.
Unless, for instance, the fundamental nature of relationships changes because of the quantitative properties of spin 1/2 particles, or if some Creator steps into this created universe and decides things should behave slightly differently from now on. Personally, I doubt that'll happen.

Do you think any of the laws could have been different back at the beginning when the universe was still young?

Transience? Ugh... I'm already exhausted, so I'll wrap my head around the nature of that tomorrow.😁

Everything passes, even transience itself.
We'll pick this up once you've had time to think.

The reason these laws exist is tied to why the world exists. If anything exists, it must function according to certain rules, whether those rules are imposed or emerge naturally.
Crucially, when I say "law," I am not suggesting every single movement is strictly predetermined. At a fundamental level, what is codified as "law" could actually include randomness (which is currently our most accurate model).

An electron moving around an isolated nucleus might truly lack any other mechanism governing its path. But let's move past that detail. My point is that randomness can be a component of order.
It’s a flawed analogy, perhaps, but think of a professional basketball game: there are fixed rules, yet every single game plays out differently within that set of possibilities.

Mark Torres14 said:Here you go. [Link]

Look, like I said before, you can look at the issue of laws through two different lenses: either within the context of a created universe or as part of an eternal one.
Let me rephrase the problem.
For example:
Are particle laws—basically the rules governing how particles behave—actually just the end result of their properties? And if so, is that the only possible way they can interact?
Either particles have properties that force them to react in specific ways, or we’re looking at something else entirely. It’s wild—you could have two identical particles interacting in completely different ways just because of how they're tuned. It makes no sense.

One case brings us closer to an eternal universe, while the other points toward a designed one—where a creator sets the gears in motion, lays down the rules like a referee in a ballgame, and just lets the play unfold.
Look, it’s simple: in the first case, the interaction is just a natural byproduct of its properties. In the second, the rules of engagement are hardcoded from the start.

That whole dualism thing goes all the way back to ancient times. At the end of the day, it just brings you right back to the classic "chicken or the egg" dilemma.
But we still haven't touched on why these specific patterns exist—the ones we call the laws of nature. Whether they're just baked-in properties or the result of certain interactions, they all point to one thing: there's no such thing as coincidence. The whole world is deterministic. Period.
Even Kant figured that out. It ate at him—the fact that you can't squeeze metaphysics out of a simple cause-and-effect loop. That’s exactly why he decided it was impossible.

Time to talk more about the second part—let’s look at the physics for a second.
Protons and neutrons aren't just simple particles—they’re built from quarks. We're talking 24 different types in total: 6 distinct "flavors," with three "colors" for each.
In theory, if we could crank up the energy levels in our experiments even higher, we might find out that these particles are actually made of something even smaller. But then again, there’s another side to the theory suggesting this might just be the fundamental breakdown point.

What’s the point of this? All the known particles in the universe fall into two camps: spin-1/2 particles that make up all the actual matter, and spin-0, 1, or 2 particles that just trigger the forces between them. (And honestly, we don't even need to get bogged down in what spin actually is right now.)
There are four fundamental forces in the universe, and they all rely on their own specific force-carrying particles—spin 0, 1, or 2.

Once we move past this point, my knowledge hits a wall. I'm stuck, and honestly, I don't have the answers to the very questions that are driving me crazy.
So, would a universe made up entirely of spin 1/2 elementary particles even work if the strong force was different?🤷

Since I don't believe in any kind of creator, I’d rather just align myself with the eternal universe and its laws. It’s a tough concept to wrap your head around, though—it almost feels contradictory. You still need that split second where particles are basically "thrown" at one another to get things moving.
I get so sucked into the nature of stuff like this that I sometimes don't even care about what's actually accurate.

You’re definitely not alone in being obsessed with how nature works.
Great explanation.

My guess is that the laws themselves stay fixed. Regardless of what they actually are—whether they were imposed on the universe or just emerged from it—their properties aren't going to shift over time.
Unless, for instance, the fundamental nature of relationships changes because of the quantitative properties of spin 1/2 particles, or if some Creator steps into this created universe and decides things should behave slightly differently from now on. Personally, I doubt that'll happen.

Do you think any of the laws could have been different back at the beginning when the universe was still young?

Transience? Ugh... I'm already exhausted, so I'll wrap my head around the nature of that tomorrow.😁

Everything passes, even transience itself.
We'll pick this up once you've had time to think.

Here is my hypothesis. We know the early universe was defined by extreme conditions and extraordinary events. If the properties of the force-carrying particles mentioned above were subject to change over time, then the laws themselves could change.
I don't know if this is true; it is merely a hypothesis based on general principles, but I believe it is possible.
The only other way for laws to change would be through external "intervention," which I find impossible to believe.

Mark Torres14 said:Here you go. [Link]

Look, like I said before, you can look at the issue of laws through two different lenses: either within the context of a created universe or as part of an eternal one.
Let me rephrase the problem.
For example:
Are particle laws—basically the rules governing how particles behave—actually just the end result of their properties? And if so, is that the only possible way they can interact?
Either particles have properties that force them to react in specific ways, or we’re looking at something else entirely. It’s wild—you could have two identical particles interacting in completely different ways just because of how they're tuned. It makes no sense.

One case brings us closer to an eternal universe, while the other points toward a designed one—where a creator sets the gears in motion, lays down the rules like a referee in a ballgame, and just lets the play unfold.
Look, it’s simple: in the first case, the interaction is just a natural byproduct of its properties. In the second, the rules of engagement are hardcoded from the start.

That whole dualism thing goes all the way back to ancient times. At the end of the day, it just brings you right back to the classic "chicken or the egg" dilemma.
But we still haven't touched on why these specific patterns exist—the ones we call the laws of nature. Whether they're just baked-in properties or the result of certain interactions, they all point to one thing: there's no such thing as coincidence. The whole world is deterministic. Period.
Even Kant figured that out. It ate at him—the fact that you can't squeeze metaphysics out of a simple cause-and-effect loop. That’s exactly why he decided it was impossible.

Time to talk more about the second part—let’s look at the physics for a second.
Protons and neutrons aren't just simple particles—they’re built from quarks. We're talking 24 different types in total: 6 distinct "flavors," with three "colors" for each.
In theory, if we could crank up the energy levels in our experiments even higher, we might find out that these particles are actually made of something even smaller. But then again, there’s another side to the theory suggesting this might just be the fundamental breakdown point.

What’s the point of this? All the known particles in the universe fall into two camps: spin-1/2 particles that make up all the actual matter, and spin-0, 1, or 2 particles that just trigger the forces between them. (And honestly, we don't even need to get bogged down in what spin actually is right now.)
There are four fundamental forces in the universe, and they all rely on their own specific force-carrying particles—spin 0, 1, or 2.

Once we move past this point, my knowledge hits a wall. I'm stuck, and honestly, I don't have the answers to the very questions that are driving me crazy.
So, would a universe made up entirely of spin 1/2 elementary particles even work if the strong force was different?🤷

Since I don't believe in any kind of creator, I’d rather just align myself with the eternal universe and its laws. It’s a tough concept to wrap your head around, though—it almost feels contradictory. You still need that split second where particles are basically "thrown" at one another to get things moving.
I get so sucked into the nature of stuff like this that I sometimes don't even care about what's actually accurate.

You’re definitely not alone in being obsessed with how nature works.
Great explanation.

My guess is that the laws themselves stay fixed. Regardless of what they actually are—whether they were imposed on the universe or just emerged from it—their properties aren't going to shift over time.
Unless, for instance, the fundamental nature of relationships changes because of the quantitative properties of spin 1/2 particles, or if some Creator steps into this created universe and decides things should behave slightly differently from now on. Personally, I doubt that'll happen.

Do you think any of the laws could have been different back at the beginning when the universe was still young?

Transience? Ugh... I'm already exhausted, so I'll wrap my head around the nature of that tomorrow.😁

Everything passes, even transience itself.
We'll pick this up once you've had time to think.

I thought about this, but I couldn't figure out how transience itself "passes." Can't its property of passing simply be superseded by another form of passing? That leads us right back to the "first cause" problem, but applied to the future—what comes last?

Thanks for the link.

Mark Torres14 said:You're interesting and you explain things well. Personally, my math skills are non-existent and my grasp on physics is pretty weak. I mostly approach these topics from a philosophical angle.
I've had a few debates with a skeptic lately, and right now I'm going back and forth with Dag Dugp over on the science subforum. The topic is "speed of light constant or not?". Check it out—if it interests you, jump in. With what you know, it shouldn't be too hard.
For the most part, we agree on our stances, though we definitely clash when it comes to how we view determinism. My take isn't quite as Hegelian, though; I actually see quantum mechanics as solid proof that determinism exists.
But hey, we're getting off track.
What do you consider to be the laws of nature?

Thanks.
I searched for the thread but couldn't find it. Send me a link here or via PM.

Mark Torres14 said:You're interesting and you explain things well. Personally, my math skills are non-existent and my grasp on physics is pretty weak. I mostly approach these topics from a philosophical angle.
I've had a few debates with a skeptic lately, and right now I'm going back and forth with Dag Dugp over on the science subforum. The topic is "speed of light constant or not?". Check it out—if it interests you, jump in. With what you know, it shouldn't be too hard.
For the most part, we agree on our stances, though we definitely clash when it comes to how we view determinism. My take isn't quite as Hegelian, though; I actually see quantum mechanics as solid proof that determinism exists.
But hey, we're getting off track.
What do you consider to be the laws of nature?

Well, as I mentioned, the problem of laws can be viewed through the lens of a created universe versus an eternal one.
Let me rephrase the issue.
For example:
- Are the laws—the rules governing particle behavior—simply an inherent consequence of particle properties and the only possible way they can interact?
- Or are particles configured such that they react to one another in specific ways, even though it might have been possible for identical particles to interact entirely differently?

The first scenario aligns with an eternal universe. The second suggests a created one, where a designer sets the mechanisms and establishes the rules, much like setting the parameters for a game, and then lets the process unfold.
In the first case, interaction is a direct result of properties; in the second, the rules of interaction are pre-programmed.

A brief physical overview regarding the second scenario:
Protons and neutrons are composed of quarks. There are 24 types of quarks (6 "flavors," each with three "colors").
Theoretically, higher-energy experiments might reveal that these particles are made of even smaller components. However, other theoretical frameworks suggest this could be the fundamental level of division.

Why mention this? All known particles in the universe fall into two categories: spin-1/2 particles, which constitute matter, and spin-0, 1, and 2 particles, which mediate the forces between them (spin isn't our focus right now).
There are four fundamental forces in the universe, each based on its own force-carrying particles (spin 0, 1, or 2).

Beyond this, my knowledge is limited. I don't have precise answers to the questions that intrigue me.
Specifically: would a universe consisting entirely of identical spin-1/2 elementary particles be possible if the force-carrying particles were different?🤷

Since I am not a believer in any creator, I lean toward the eternal universe and its consequent rules—though that is difficult to conceptualize and somewhat paradoxical, as it requires a moment where particles are nonetheless "thrown" together.
The subject fascinates me so much that I sometimes overlook what is strictly accurate.

My assumption is that laws do not change. Regardless of their nature—whether imposed or consequential—I believe their properties remain constant over time.
Unless the fundamental nature of these relationships shifts due to the quantitative properties of spin 1/2 particles—or perhaps some Creator steps in and decides things should work slightly differently in this manufactured universe. I highly doubt either will happen.

As for permeability? Look... I'm too tired to deal with this right now. I'll tackle the nature of that tomorrow. 😁

Mark Torres14 said:Chance is an affront to the laws that govern everything else. Determinism isn't just some theory; it's baked into every single layer of reality, even down at the quantum level. The only place where randomness actually gets a seat at the table is at the very beginning—the singularity.

Probability isn't the same thing as a "pure" mechanical cause-and-effect relationship. Sure, every event is going to lead to an outcome, but if you’re staring down multiple equally likely possibilities, all you can do is make a probabilistic guess. That's just how it works.

Exactly.

There are two ways to look at this. One view is that a specific outcome is just one possibility out of a whole set of potential results—some of which clearly aren't even on the table. Precisely defined. But we can't exactly know that for sure.
So, if I’m following you, you’re actually buying into that idea. It’s like rolling dice. You can't predict which of those six outcomes you'll get, even though the result is just a direct consequence of how a die of a specific mass and size rolls across a surface. Clear cause and effect, yet totally unpredictable.

This thing is deterministic, but since we don't know all the variables, we're basically just making educated guesses.

Second point: we aren't just calculating odds like you're rolling dice. There are zero hidden variables at play here. The outcome isn't random because we're missing data—it’s random by its very nature. Period.

That's an indeterminate system.

Can you break down that last paragraph a bit more? I want to know exactly when this kind of non-deterministic system actually kicks in.

I’m with you on that. But honestly, I always try to tackle these metaphysical questions from a scientific angle. I want to weigh every thesis against hard data or pure logic, though I have to admit—in this field, that starts getting harder and harder to do the longer you look into it.

We’re just overthinking things here, and honestly, who cares? I’m definitely not going to hold it against you if you trip up, just like you won't with me. As long as it's interesting, that's all that matters.

What makes you think that's true?
Relativity tore apart the classical understanding of space and time. It’s a reality, but most people (aside from those who just use the phrase "everything is relative" as a cliché) find it completely incomprehensible.

Quantum physics broke absolute determinism, and chaos theory challenged practical predictability even on a macroscopic scale.

Mark Torres14 said:Chance is an affront to the laws that govern everything else. Determinism isn't just some theory; it's baked into every single layer of reality, even down at the quantum level. The only place where randomness actually gets a seat at the table is at the very beginning—the singularity.

Probability isn't the same thing as a "pure" mechanical cause-and-effect relationship. Sure, every event is going to lead to an outcome, but if you’re staring down multiple equally likely possibilities, all you can do is make a probabilistic guess. That's just how it works.

Exactly.

There are two ways to look at this. One view is that a specific outcome is just one possibility out of a whole set of potential results—some of which clearly aren't even on the table. Precisely defined. But we can't exactly know that for sure.
So, if I’m following you, you’re actually buying into that idea. It’s like rolling dice. You can't predict which of those six outcomes you'll get, even though the result is just a direct consequence of how a die of a specific mass and size rolls across a surface. Clear cause and effect, yet totally unpredictable.

This thing is deterministic, but since we don't know all the variables, we're basically just making educated guesses.

Second point: we aren't just calculating odds like you're rolling dice. There are zero hidden variables at play here. The outcome isn't random because we're missing data—it’s random by its very nature. Period.

That's an indeterminate system.

Can you break down that last paragraph a bit more? I want to know exactly when this kind of non-deterministic system actually kicks in.

I’m with you on that. But honestly, I always try to tackle these metaphysical questions from a scientific angle. I want to weigh every thesis against hard data or pure logic, though I have to admit—in this field, that starts getting harder and harder to do the longer you look into it.

We’re just overthinking things here, and honestly, who cares? I’m definitely not going to hold it against you if you trip up, just like you won't with me. As long as it's interesting, that's all that matters.

(Since I don't know your background in math or physics, I'm attempting to be as simple as possible.)

The laws of quantum physics were discovered by accident through studying phenomena that defied classical physics—blackbody radiation, the photoelectric effect, and the atomic model.
Consequently, about 100 years later, we understand that subatomic behavior isn't an isolated anomaly; randomness is the foundation. Macroscopic classical mechanics is merely a special case of quantum mechanics, not the other way around.

An electron doesn't conform to our classical observations of waves or particles because an electron is neither a wave nor a particle.
Furthermore, it isn't subject to the laws of classical mechanics or electromagnetism that we observe in our daily lives. Under those classical laws, atoms couldn't exist, meaning the world wouldn't exist either.

Electron behavior is described by a probability function. An electron isn't precisely "somewhere," so we cannot know its location.
It exists in multiple places simultaneously. You shouldn't view an electron as a particle, nor should you view its presence in multiple locations as several occurrences of one particle. The same applies to waves. An electron is a wave-particle. This is proven through experimentation; it works in practice.
Electron behavior follows its own set of laws, which are more or less understood. In some theories, uncertainty isn't caused by the limits of our observation, but is actually built into the laws themselves.
This is the physical law with the greatest philosophical implications. 🙂

Interpretations of this problem split into two main schools of thought: one that accepts uncertainty as an inherent property of the particle, and another that believes there are unknown variables, laws, or patterns we simply haven't found yet due to the uncertainty principle (meaning they would be experimental rather than fundamental).
However, uncertainty is far more serious than if we simply assumed it was a way to excuse our own ignorance. It is both theoretical and experimental.

Mark Torres14 said:I’m telling you, cause and effect still apply here. If they didn't, the whole world would have fallen apart by now. You can predict the future, sure—but don't be naive. It's not some straight line; it's all about probability.
Uncertainty just means nothing in this world can ever hit an absolute zero. If it did, we'd be staring at actual "nothingness."
Quincy:

That’s exactly it. When I talk about a catalyst, that’s precisely what I mean. Someone, something, some force, some being, some personality, some other reality, SOMETHING. I don't see this creator as Western. Honestly, I don't even see him as something we can wrap our heads around using logic. Look, I see both of your options as one single thing—something totally foreign and impossible to wrap my head around.

If we’re building logic around the idea of an unmoved mover, then our whole goal should be figuring out what that mover actually is. I'm not buying into that defeatist attitude where people claim they experience something as a single entity, but then just shrug their shoulders because they can't reconcile its internal contradictions. I refuse to accept that some things are just "unknowable" because they're too complex. Not happening.
I don't know what to tell you. You're just talking in circles now.
Like I said before, I’m completely cutting that out of our logic. Look, I get it—it’s probably not the most fun way to argue, but I’ve always believed you have to draw a line somewhere. There's a massive difference between making an educated guess and talking about something you know absolutely nothing about.
I don't know if there is. I'm ready. Send over the first post. Space and time—do they actually exist, or are they just emerging from something else entirely? 🤷

I don't have a strong opinion either way on the version with the intro versus the one without. 🙂I don't know what you're talking about. You're missing the point entirely.
It’s not about the specific premise. It’s about throwing a thesis out there just so we can tear it apart, stress-test it, and smash it to pieces to see if it actually holds water against reality. If we can't find a flaw, then fine—it becomes a theory. But even then, we keep pushing it, stretching it, and trying to break it again as new ideas come along. That's how this works.
It's absolutely not happening here.

Why would the world fall apart?
Probability isn't the same thing as a direct, mechanical cause-and-effect relationship. Every event yields an outcome, but when multiple outcomes carry equal weight, prediction becomes limited to probability alone.

There are two perspectives here. One is that a specific outcome is simply one possibility among many—some of which are clearly impossible. Precisely defined. But that's not for us to decide.
If I understand you correctly, you’re siding with that logic. It’s like rolling dice. You can't predict which of the six outcomes will land, even though the result is just a direct consequence of physics—the mass of the die hitting the table. Clear cause and effect. Still unpredictable.

It’s deterministic. But since we lack all the variables, it remains nothing more than a prediction.

Second point: we aren't just calculating probabilities for a specific outcome—like rolling dice. There are no hidden variables at play here. The result isn't random because we lack data; it is inherently random by its very nature.

It's an indeterminate system.

Mark Torres14 said:I’m telling you, cause and effect still apply here. If they didn't, the whole world would have fallen apart by now. You can predict the future, sure—but don't be naive. It's not some straight line; it's all about probability.
Uncertainty just means nothing in this world can ever hit an absolute zero. If it did, we'd be staring at actual "nothingness."
Quincy:

That’s exactly it. When I talk about a catalyst, that’s precisely what I mean. Someone, something, some force, some being, some personality, some other reality, SOMETHING. I don't see this creator as Western. Honestly, I don't even see him as something we can wrap our heads around using logic. Look, I see both of your options as one single thing—something totally foreign and impossible to wrap my head around.

If we’re building logic around the idea of an unmoved mover, then our whole goal should be figuring out what that mover actually is. I'm not buying into that defeatist attitude where people claim they experience something as a single entity, but then just shrug their shoulders because they can't reconcile its internal contradictions. I refuse to accept that some things are just "unknowable" because they're too complex. Not happening.
I don't know what to tell you. You're just talking in circles now.
Like I said before, I’m completely cutting that out of our logic. Look, I get it—it’s probably not the most fun way to argue, but I’ve always believed you have to draw a line somewhere. There's a massive difference between making an educated guess and talking about something you know absolutely nothing about.
I don't know if there is. I'm ready. Send over the first post. Space and time—do they actually exist, or are they just emerging from something else entirely? 🤷

I don't have a strong opinion either way on the version with the intro versus the one without. 🙂I don't know what you're talking about. You're missing the point entirely.
It’s not about the specific premise. It’s about throwing a thesis out there just so we can tear it apart, stress-test it, and smash it to pieces to see if it actually holds water against reality. If we can't find a flaw, then fine—it becomes a theory. But even then, we keep pushing it, stretching it, and trying to break it again as new ideas come along. That's how this works.
It's absolutely not happening here.

I agree this is problematic. However, I have no leads on how to speculate or what framework to use for analysis.

Mark Torres14 said:I’m telling you, cause and effect still apply here. If they didn't, the whole world would have fallen apart by now. You can predict the future, sure—but don't be naive. It's not some straight line; it's all about probability.
Uncertainty just means nothing in this world can ever hit an absolute zero. If it did, we'd be staring at actual "nothingness."
Quincy:

That’s exactly it. When I talk about a catalyst, that’s precisely what I mean. Someone, something, some force, some being, some personality, some other reality, SOMETHING. I don't see this creator as Western. Honestly, I don't even see him as something we can wrap our heads around using logic. Look, I see both of your options as one single thing—something totally foreign and impossible to wrap my head around.

If we’re building logic around the idea of an unmoved mover, then our whole goal should be figuring out what that mover actually is. I'm not buying into that defeatist attitude where people claim they experience something as a single entity, but then just shrug their shoulders because they can't reconcile its internal contradictions. I refuse to accept that some things are just "unknowable" because they're too complex. Not happening.
I don't know what to tell you. You're just talking in circles now.
Like I said before, I’m completely cutting that out of our logic. Look, I get it—it’s probably not the most fun way to argue, but I’ve always believed you have to draw a line somewhere. There's a massive difference between making an educated guess and talking about something you know absolutely nothing about.
I don't know if there is. I'm ready. Send over the first post. Space and time—do they actually exist, or are they just emerging from something else entirely? 🤷

I don't have a strong opinion either way on the version with the intro versus the one without. 🙂I don't know what you're talking about. You're missing the point entirely.
It’s not about the specific premise. It’s about throwing a thesis out there just so we can tear it apart, stress-test it, and smash it to pieces to see if it actually holds water against reality. If we can't find a flaw, then fine—it becomes a theory. But even then, we keep pushing it, stretching it, and trying to break it again as new ideas come along. That's how this works.
It's absolutely not happening here.

I agree. I tend to approach these metaphysical questions from a scientific perspective. I try to weigh every thesis against hard data or pure logic. Eventually, in this field, that becomes an impossible task.

hollowpuma762 said:*cough*

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/....18/light.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011801683.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in517850.shtml

http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=39733

Fine. I assume he was referring to the constant speed of light in a vacuum.

I went through three of those links. They all focus exclusively on light slowing down—which is standard. Only one mentions any slight acceleration, yet provides zero supporting evidence or data. Even that single source spends its time discussing the deceleration of light.

Mark Torres14 said:😕 Why on earth do you think the chain of cause and effect doesn't belong to the atomic realm?
Can you actually explain what you're claiming in more detail?

Personally, the Prime Mover isn't paradoxical. Look, I can't explain it. But that's the whole point. I don't know how to put into words what I'm experiencing here.
I don't even categorize a potential mover within space-time concepts, or motion versus stillness. To me, the existence of a mover implies something fundamentally incomprehensible. Not just because its nature might be impossible to uncover, like some weird subatomic behavior (maybe).
It’s simply beyond our capacity to grasp.

But it *is* paradoxical.
That leaves us with two options. Either this "unmoved mover" doesn't exist at all and the world is driven by other logics we haven't figured out yet, or it does exist, but since we are part of it, we're stuck inside looking out and can't observe it from the outside.

Besides, setting the universe in motion is just one theory; one that relies on the existence of this unknown factor.

Time is just a measure of motion. No motion, no time.
Can there even be a space where nothing exists—no matter, no beings, no movement, and no time?
I get the feeling we already know everything; we just haven't figured out how to piece it together correctly.

Current scientific consensus is clear. You cannot simultaneously define both the velocity and the position of an electron. That is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
The consequence isn't just that predicting the future becomes impossible—that's practically an established fact now. According to Heisenberg's interpretation, the electron's movement is fundamentally random.
Einstein disagreed with the idea that "God does not play dice." His stance was that while we might be unable to determine both position and velocity simultaneously right now, those variables remain deterministic.
Since we can't theoretically or practically define both velocity and position simultaneously, we're left with nothing but faith. I have to be careful how I frame this when discussing physics. 😛 We follow the evidence, plain and simple. Both sides. As far as I know, mainstream science leans toward the first theory—the accidental one.

Mark Torres14 said:😕 Why on earth do you think the chain of cause and effect doesn't belong to the atomic realm?
Can you actually explain what you're claiming in more detail?

Personally, the Prime Mover isn't paradoxical. Look, I can't explain it. But that's the whole point. I don't know how to put into words what I'm experiencing here.
I don't even categorize a potential mover within space-time concepts, or motion versus stillness. To me, the existence of a mover implies something fundamentally incomprehensible. Not just because its nature might be impossible to uncover, like some weird subatomic behavior (maybe).
It’s simply beyond our capacity to grasp.

But it *is* paradoxical.
That leaves us with two options. Either this "unmoved mover" doesn't exist at all and the world is driven by other logics we haven't figured out yet, or it does exist, but since we are part of it, we're stuck inside looking out and can't observe it from the outside.

Besides, setting the universe in motion is just one theory; one that relies on the existence of this unknown factor.

Time is just a measure of motion. No motion, no time.
Can there even be a space where nothing exists—no matter, no beings, no movement, and no time?
I get the feeling we already know everything; we just haven't figured out how to piece it together correctly.

That’s exactly it. When I say "driver," that is precisely what I mean. Someone, something, some force, some entity, some persona, some other reality, SOMETHING.
I don't view the Creator as Western. I don't see Him as something that can be subjected to our logic at all.
To be clear: I view your two options as one single, alien, and unknowable thing.

Mark Torres14 said:😕 Why on earth do you think the chain of cause and effect doesn't belong to the atomic realm?
Can you actually explain what you're claiming in more detail?

Personally, the Prime Mover isn't paradoxical. Look, I can't explain it. But that's the whole point. I don't know how to put into words what I'm experiencing here.
I don't even categorize a potential mover within space-time concepts, or motion versus stillness. To me, the existence of a mover implies something fundamentally incomprehensible. Not just because its nature might be impossible to uncover, like some weird subatomic behavior (maybe).
It’s simply beyond our capacity to grasp.

But it *is* paradoxical.
That leaves us with two options. Either this "unmoved mover" doesn't exist at all and the world is driven by other logics we haven't figured out yet, or it does exist, but since we are part of it, we're stuck inside looking out and can't observe it from the outside.

Besides, setting the universe in motion is just one theory; one that relies on the existence of this unknown factor.

Time is just a measure of motion. No motion, no time.
Can there even be a space where nothing exists—no matter, no beings, no movement, and no time?
I get the feeling we already know everything; we just haven't figured out how to piece it together correctly.

Like I said earlier, that's completely outside the scope of our logic. I realize it isn't the most entertaining stance for a debate, but I’ve always believed it is vital to draw a line between what can be reasonably assumed and what is simply unknown.
I don't know if there even is. to Space. Time. Does space itself emerge from something that isn't spatial? 🤷

I don't hold a definitive stance on whether the universe had a beginning or not. 🙂

Mark Torres14 said:I'll wait.
But you don't even need to look at Big Pork as an example.
Just look at basic motion. It's obvious that motion happens through a chain of cause and effect. The real question is: who kicked off that reaction? Simply existing and being conceived leads to the initiator. This entity has to pull double duty—being both moving and stationary at once. Stationary because it's the first mover and nobody "pushed" it, yet moving because it's the one pushing "the second."
Implicitly, the start and end of any movement fall into a paradox. They are simultaneously motion and stillness (the unmoving mover).

Agreed. It doesn't have to be Big Pork.
We are discussing the general theory that reality had a beginning. I used that specific example because it’s the most studied scientific model.

Mark Torres14 said:I'll wait.
But you don't even need to look at Big Pork as an example.
Just look at basic motion. It's obvious that motion happens through a chain of cause and effect. The real question is: who kicked off that reaction? Simply existing and being conceived leads to the initiator. This entity has to pull double duty—being both moving and stationary at once. Stationary because it's the first mover and nobody "pushed" it, yet moving because it's the one pushing "the second."
Implicitly, the start and end of any movement fall into a paradox. They are simultaneously motion and stillness (the unmoving mover).

Let's assume that's the case, even if...
That logic holds in the macroscopic world, but not at the atomic level. The issue is that certain subatomic inconsistencies could influence the macroscopic world—essentially providing the data point from which all subsequent cause-and-effect events unfold.

Mark Torres14 said:I'll wait.
But you don't even need to look at Big Pork as an example.
Just look at basic motion. It's obvious that motion happens through a chain of cause and effect. The real question is: who kicked off that reaction? Simply existing and being conceived leads to the initiator. This entity has to pull double duty—being both moving and stationary at once. Stationary because it's the first mover and nobody "pushed" it, yet moving because it's the one pushing "the second."
Implicitly, the start and end of any movement fall into a paradox. They are simultaneously motion and stillness (the unmoving mover).

Personally, the mover isn't a paradox to me. I can't explain it, certainly. But that's the point. Finding a concise way to describe my perception is difficult.
I don't even categorize a potential mover within spatial-temporal concepts like motion or stasis. To me, the existence of a mover implies something incomprehensible. Not because its nature might be impossible to uncover, much like subatomic behavior.
It's simply beyond human comprehension.

Besides, triggering the universe is just one theory; one that relies entirely on the existence of this unknown factor.

Here is my take, sitting somewhere between scientific fact and my own judgment. Perhaps "scientific assumptions" is a better term, since science is constantly evolving; there will always be gaps or things taken as absolute truth that aren't.

> If the universe had a beginning, then there must be a mover.
The argument that this represents the beginning of time holds up at a macroscopic level—it’s what is observable. It applies to the material world, and our current knowledge aligns with the idea that there was indeed a starting point.
However, it isn't "justified" or even logical to claim that, say, Big Pork happened entirely on its own. Science doesn't make that claim, even though critics often accuse it of lacking a prime mover.
The reality is that we simply cannot access "moment zero." Even if a mover for Big Pork exists, everything we know about the world remains valid (unless it's proven that this entity intervenes in the world after the fact).

Speculating on the nature of the mover is impossible. But I'll simplify it: if "it" (whatever that implies) set things in motion, my intuition tells me it embedded the laws within the system.
That doesn't mean those laws are above or below the material world. Nor does it mean they are more or less real. Think of it like a sport: the game has rules. It makes no sense to compare the reality of the rules to the reality of the sport itself (assuming the mover doesn't interfere—meaning once the "game of the world" starts, the rules can't be changed or broken). 🤷

If we assume there is no interference, it becomes possible to predict the end of the human era. The total destruction of all reality is unlikely, but a complete collapse of our current state is possible. That said, everything we know suggests that won't happen.

> If the universe has no beginning, then there is no mover.
This theory raises far more questions regarding natural laws. The core issue is grasping what preceded what, given that both would have existed eternally. 🤷

I'll leave this part unfinished for now. Something just occurred to me, but I need to dig through some texts to organize my thoughts. It involves physics, so I won't wing it. 😁

This is an interesting thread and easy to follow, though I’m struggling to pin down the actual core issue here.

Are we looking for a definition of permeability, debating reality versus abstraction, or something else entirely? I want to contribute, but there are so many overlapping terms that I'm not sure where to start.🙂