Posts by Mark Torres14

Olivia Evans8 said:Does coding actually need a programmer, or is that just some weird linguistic quirk we've all accepted...??

What even is a program?🤷

Life is just a flicker. Death is when the flickering stops. But how can a flicker—something defined entirely by its movement—ever truly understand what it means to be still?
Who’s to say there aren't wonders in this world beyond the flicker?

Maybe "human nature" is a myth.
The whole idea of "human nature" implies we’re some finished product. But look at us: we’re the only species constantly obsessed with fixing our own incompleteness. It’s a double-edged sword. On one hand, it leaves us feeling totally isolated in a world where every other creature seems perfectly content being what they are. On the other, it gives us this god-like sense of freedom—this ability to actually shape who we become.
Even physically, we’re outliers. We’re basically just meat-eaters with zero natural advantages. Our brains are massive energy hogs, an evolutionary waste of resources that somehow stripped away all our biological limiters. Now, the only thing holding our development back is physical space.

dustyskipper3 said:It took Bach a lifetime to master those organs, but in doing so, he expressed his free will. The systems used for composition back then—polyphony, harmony, progressions, all that—they seemed to align perfectly with his own internal informational entropy as a human being. Even now, when we listen to Bach, it feels like he "pulls" us into his world. We can't always see the foundation upon which he built the music, because it contains more information than we are capable of processing through just a few octaves of a single organ.

Kids on the internet and their phones, downloading games and scrolling endlessly through Facebook... they are in the same position we are in when we listen to Bach. They are pulled into the "game" as passive players by a system whose informational entropy is far greater than their own. The difference, though, is that the information filling them up via the internet isn't the stuff Bach or Mozart would provide; it's mostly, well, junk. Pornography, lies, nonsense... that sort of thing. Here, entropy isn't achieved through quality or organized thought, but through sheer quantity of low-quality noise. But it's still enough to drown an ordinary human mind, to strip away its "free will" and sink it into the Matrix. Apparently, in the US, they try to teach kids in school how to pick out quality content—the top 10%—and distinguish it from the 90% of garbage online, but in my opinion, that's not something you can really teach. Simply put, this bombardment of information leads to a "Brave New World"—a society split into alphas, betas, gammas, deltas, and epsilons; managers, programmers, admins, consumers, and the laborers who just surf porn sites and work as cashiers at a local grocery store. 😬

Quincy:

Have you ever actually tried getting involved in politics at any level? I suppose I have, and I can tell you that people holding positions at any stage... well, they can be anything, really, but I wouldn't call them incompetent. In fact, if I’m being honest, you might even say they are exceptionally talented at the specific traits that democracy seems to favor most: sycophancy, pushing agendas, manipulation, scheming, planting seeds, misrepresentation, bribery, forming alliances with similar types only to betray them later, sucking up to power, and so on... I won't even list them all. I wouldn't go so far as to call those people imbeciles—I think there are other people I'd call that, but maybe that's a different topic. The question is, why does it seem like people with these exact traits always rise to the surface in a democracy? Is it possible we are blaming the players when the game itself is flawed? Or is this just a localized issue here in the States? Personally, I tend to think that democracy is an extremely inadequate form of governance.

It's also worth noting that maybe only about 13% of people (or perhaps even less) truly decide anything in politics. About a third are just resigned spectators, and then there's roughly half who act like sheep, being led by that 13% through various manipulations designed to toy with them and force them into submission. Democracy is a system where, in reality, about 10% of the people rule and manage things, while 50% live under the illusion that they have a say, and 40% know perfectly well they have no influence at all and just stay home. Actually, even under communism, there was only about 10% membership in the party, right? Except, I guess, those 50% didn't suffer from the illusion of choice, because, as Mark Torres14 already pointed out, in a communist system you could only choose between black bread or white bread—which most people can see is beneath their capacity for actual decision-making. But even though nowadays you have more varieties of bread, you still aren't the one deciding on that bread; you are just placed in the position of a passive consumer who can pick from a palette that someone else has already curated for you.

Does the development of a new version of Windows happen democratically, where even the most casual users are consulted? Or do Gates and his inner circle implement features based on the preferences of the massive corporations they partner with and who pay them? Even Linux and Open Source have limitations, since only those with specific technical know-how participate in its creation, which is once again just a small minority.

Otherwise, the idea that we should ask ordinary people what services they want and what they think, and then decide based on that, is probably a utopia. The "big players" simply have no need for such things. They just sweep the little people away like dust off a sideboard and move on.☕

Imagine wasting your whole life on just one single thing. Gives me the creeps.
Total specialization. Maybe that's exactly why he actually managed to build something worth something?
I live for information. I crave it. For me, pure specialization is impossible. And maybe that's the reason I haven't created anything remotely comparable to Bach.
What really fascinates me—and why I even started this thread—is how things just hijack our existence. We eat when we aren't hungry, drink when we aren't thirsty, listen when we don't want to listen, sing when we don't feel like singing... it never ends. It's constant, massive consumption. My apartment alone needs its own damn power plant; fifty years ago, an entire small town in the Midwest would have used less electricity a month than I do right now.

Michael Moore3 said:Look, we aren't going to let people die, so please stop derailing the thread and go start your own discussion.
Thanks for understanding.

Fine by me.🙂
I wasn't trying to hijack the conversation or anything.
I was just having a chill chat with some buddies about whether we'd ever go back to our college days or not. It all leads to the same point anyway.

Let’s move away from death for a second. Let's pick something a bit less extreme.
Would you actually go back into a body and let a ten-year-old die?

dustyangler43 said:I honestly feel like those old-school standards of etiquette and decorum—along with all those other classic traditions—are just evaporating. We’re seeing a whole new generation step up, people who are raising their own kids without ever having been taught those foundational basics themselves. You can tell almost instantly upon meeting someone whether they belong to the "free-spirited and modern" crowd or if they actually come from that more traditional, old-school background.

They’re just making up their own rules of etiquette.
It’s pretty wild how their rules actually work. Their codes for behavior, social standing, and hierarchy are incredibly rigid. What we might look at and call "deviant" behavior is really just a byproduct of how that group is stratified. It's all part of the structure.
Take sports fans, for example. Or even just people driven by raw emotion. They all have these incredibly rigid patterns of informal behavior—you could almost call it their own specific code of conduct.
Official rules, state mandates, or those "generally accepted" social graces? They’ve never actually worked in practice. Not anywhere. It’s precisely because people reject them that we get anything interesting out of life—that’s where all the real grit, humor, and drama come from. You see it in every great book, movie, or play. Real life isn't polite.
Take a "stylistic exercise," for instance—every single person on that subway train has their own specific brand of etiquette.

Raymond Miller38 said: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. 😁

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. 😁

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. 🙂

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?😕

Raymond Miller38 said: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. 😁)

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:

Mark Torres14 said:Think about it, Apemant.
How does the brain control and manage every single muscle? It follows the rhythm, doses the force of a piano key strike, manages body movements, head positions, listens to itself while reacting to the music as a whole, tracks the surroundings, the lighting, the audience, and controls every finger individually.
One single movement triggers entire groups of muscles and sweat glands, regulates blood pressure and heart rate, and is simultaneously incredibly sensitive to a wrong note, the force of a strike, or a change in tempo.
No math can calculate that. It's simply impossible—it borders on magic.

Anyway, the post was actually about this kid

Raymond Miller38 said: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.

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

Raymond Miller38 said:Thanks. Honestly, the example you gave is so basic that you don't need to be Einstein to wrap your head around it.

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."

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. 😁

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. 🙂

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.

Olivia Evans8 said:Why wouldn't it be?

It’s wild how you just refuse to accept that this isn't all just random luck...
Or maybe, wait, it just hit me—do you think determinism actually needs God to work?

Look, I’m not picking sides here. I'm just saying there's zero way to prove one side is right over the other. They both seem totally plausible to me! And nah, determinism doesn't have to come from God, because if it did, I’d just end up asking Him the exact same question all over again...😉

At this level, since we can't provide any actual serious evidence, nobody can make a definitive claim.
We can only play the odds and say one option feels more likely than the other. As far as I'm concerned, the fact is our entire world—from the Big Bang until today—has deterministic streaks baked into it. Randomness isn't running the show. You could try to find randomness in the initial conditions (the very beginning), but even that seems sketchy to me. We only claim that because we know next to nothing about those starting conditions.
Whether it's randomness or determinism, I believe it requires three things:

1. Multiple distinct entities
2. Motion that results in the passage of time.
3. A space for it all to happen.

Those are the properties of our universe, and the reality is it's deterministic because it moves in a specific "direction"—entropy.

Olivia Evans8 said:Hell yeah!

I’m telling you, that just isn't right... totally off base!

And honestly, you can't even prove that claim... it's just impossible...

Mark Torres14 said:

If we’re talking about coincidence, then we’re talking about it being "random" in every single sense of the word. Like, across the board! From the tiny microscopic stuff to the massive macro scale... It just doesn't add up. In the micro world, you’ve got things like the estimated lifespan of a proton basically calling bullshit on the idea of pure randomness. And when you look at the big picture? Man, the fact that we even have consciousness—this ability to perceive objective reality and actually exert physical influence on it through sheer intention—that totally flies in the face of everything being just a fluke... Honestly, if things were just totally random, the whole world would be such a mess... it just wouldn't hold together!

And again, those "arguments" of yours aren't actually arguments at all... You’re out here treating randomness like it's just pure, unadulterated chaos. But that’s exactly what it is! And get this—one of the actual possibilities within that chaos is order itself. The proof is mathematical and totally crystal clear. Honestly, watching you refuse to accept that is just fascinating to me...

You're right. You can't.

Again, those "arguments" aren't arguments at all. You're treating randomness like it's pure chaos. It is. But order is just one of the possibilities within that chaos. The proof is mathematical and absolute. Your refusal to accept that is fascinating.

The arguments hold up.
But let's agree that order is one way chaos manifests. Mathematically, proving that is easy.
Just look around. Everything is order—cause and effect, natural laws, set constraints. There are no miracles here. No energy appearing from nothing, no levitation, and you need a massive list of elements just to stay alive.
Why is the world stable?
It’s wild to me how you refuse to accept that this isn't just some cosmic accident.
Or, wait—is it possible you think determinism requires God?

Raymond Miller38 said:I can. 🙂

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.

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?

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.

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.

Olivia Evans8 said:Dude, are you even trying to follow what I'm saying? What you're talking about has nothing to do with my point. Just because everything behaves randomly doesn't mean it can't *look* non-random and orderly. In fact, it's precisely because it looks that way that we perceive determinism! If some random number generator spits out 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, you have absolutely no way of knowing if it's a random or a deterministic generator. Just because that sequence is a tiny fraction of all possible scenarios doesn't mean it can't happen. It doesn't matter that there are way more disordered states... we wouldn't even notice them because we aren't here to see them anyway!

So, if I'm following you, this is what you're getting at:
If we have enough time, any combination of anything imaginable could eventually happen through simple random selection. Given an infinite timeline and an astronomical number of combinations, it's inevitable—it *has* to happen—that a shorter sequence of those combinations will show patterns we interpret as determinism. This entire string of patterns doesn't negate randomness at all; it’s just one subset of it.
If that's true, then the theory of the infinite multiverse is correct, where worlds differ by nothing more than the position of a single electron or some much more complex arrangement.

I say that's wrong.

If randomness exists, it has to be "random" in every direction. Both in the micro and macro worlds. In the micro world, the estimated lifespan of a proton flat-out denies that kind of randomness. In the macro world, the mere fact that consciousness exists regarding objective reality—and its physical impact on that reality driven by intent—is the total opposite of randomness.

Put simply, a random universe wouldn't be stable.

Raymond Miller38 said: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.

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.

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. 😁

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.

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

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.

Raymond Miller38 said: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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.)

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.👍

Raymond Miller38 said: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.

Define "conscious matter." 🤷

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.)

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. 😁

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.

Olivia Evans8 said:Look, randomness implies there's no cause. But what you're describing as "pure randomness" is really just one possible way things could work. Just because motion is random doesn't mean everything changes every second just because it can. You could actually have a deterministic system emerge from a much larger random system... It's all connected. Absolute chaos is one possibility for a random universe, but another possibility is a universe that looks completely deterministic on the surface.

Since there are way more disordered states than ordered ones, there's a much higher probability that the birth of our universe was pure luck—a moment where all the "marbles" just happened to land in a perfect arrangement to create the universe we see. And now, starting from that random, perfectly ordered state, our universe is heading straight toward total disorder. That's the whole point of entropy.
I think this "viewpoint" is pretty much accepted by modern physics.
If you actually apply some logic to randomness and determinism, you'll realize they both require certain prerequisites. One prerequisite is motion, which implicitly implies time. Basically, randomness or determinism can only exist in a space where things are moving, and time acts as the measure of that movement. To break it down further: something is random if the entities moving through that space head in any direction without any rules, or if they move in specific directions following certain rules.
That's exactly why, for absolute chaos to even exist, there has to be a universe that—I'll admit—could be random.
However, at the exact moment the universe was created, before those two conditions—motion and time—even existed, we can't claim the universe itself is random. That initial moment is simply beyond the reach of randomness or determinism.

Raymond Miller38 said: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.

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.

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.

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.