Transience

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:dustyskipper3 is spot on. This whole topic has nothing to do with God.
Let me clarify.

Isn't it weird that when we look at things—beings or objects—happening around us, we can never claim they are absolutely true in their essence? Or, to put it more simply, in their entirety. A physicist will tell you empty space doesn't even exist because quantum laws say the "shuddering of space" won't allow it. According to the uncertainty principle, a boundary doesn't really "exist" as a definitive line. If you zoom in, everything gets blurry; you can't point to an exact spot and say, "this is where one thing ends and another begins." Try defining the exact line between a living thing and a non-living object, and you'll find it's impossible. We can't assign any absolute characteristic or size to a single entity that makes it a complete, isolated unit separate from the rest of the world. At the same time, no single thing is strictly necessary for the rest of the world to function. It implies that in the real world, there is no such thing as necessity or finality.

Running parallel to this physical reality is the world of natural laws that dictates how everything functions. The speed of light is always exactly what it is—not a fraction faster or slower. Pi is always 3.14..., never 3.15 or 3.13. Physicists define the size and characteristics of an electron, arguing that without those specific values, the universe wouldn't hold together. Energy converts to matter and back again via E=mc², and no other formula works. Two plus two equals four, not five or six. Since the world operates by these rules, we can say these laws are both necessary and, interestingly, finite.

The fact is, these two worlds are intertwined. One cannot function without the other. For instance, we can only conceptualize infinity as a combination of these two realms; infinity doesn't exist if you only look at it through the lens of the physical world or the world of laws alone.
It’s also fascinating that while laws exist in an ideal form, applying them to the real world always results in something that is probably true, but never absolutely certain. That's why physicists don't need to hunt for a singularity in a black hole or at the beginning of the universe—it's right in front of them. Every instance of finitude is so incredible that we can basically call the question of its existence a singularity itself.

We know where things are located, but where do the laws reside?

*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

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.

Raymond Miller38 said: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.

It stands to reason, given that light is essentially a form of matter, so it's perfectly natural for it to slow down when passing through a medium... 😁

Raymond Miller38 said: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.

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.

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. 🙂

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.

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

I'm not going to budge. I still say the speed of light is constant. Not a fraction more, not a fraction less.
Slowing down light is a completely different concept and has nothing to do with what we're talking about here.
Prove me wrong.
P.S. Use your own words. I'm sick of the links. This is a forum.

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.

Raymond Miller38 said: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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Raymond Miller38 said: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.

(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.

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?

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. 😁

Raymond Miller38 said:Thanks.
I searched for the thread but couldn't find it. Send me a link here or via PM.

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. 😁

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.

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.

I totally disagree. Seriously! Just grab any random string of ones and zeros you want, and eventually, some infinite random number generator is gonna spit out that exact sequence...😉

Olivia Evans8 said:I totally disagree. Seriously! Just grab any random string of ones and zeros you want, and eventually, some infinite random number generator is gonna spit out that exact sequence...😉

Olivia Evans8, I define randomness as a total lack of causality.
Pure randomness or pure causality are just paradoxical, absolute concepts that flip into their opposites when taken to the extreme.
We already covered this when we talked about infinity.
The reality is, our world exists somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.
To support this "relative" determinism, look at motion and time. Time wouldn't even exist if every single particle was moving in every direction without cause. It works both ways, too. Motion happens within time, so without time, there's no motion.
The simple fact that eggs break instead of unbreaking is proof enough that some level of determinism exists in this world. Sure, you could theoretically reverse the process tomorrow, but even that's just another form of determinism.
True randomness would be if eggs were constantly breaking and unbreaking at random, leaving you totally unable to find an algorithm to predict the outcome. That would be absolute chaos.

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.

Olivia Evans8 said:I totally disagree. Seriously! Just grab any random string of ones and zeros you want, and eventually, some infinite random number generator is gonna spit out that exact sequence...😉

Precisely. It’s just the infinite monkey theorem in digital clothing, I suppose.
/
I have to admit, Mark Torres14, I didn't quite follow your train of thought there. Why on earth do you think true randomness is just an illusion..?

Dennis Rogers6 said:Precisely. It’s just the infinite monkey theorem in digital clothing, I suppose.
/
I have to admit, Mark Torres14, I didn't quite follow your train of thought there. Why on earth do you think true randomness is just an illusion..?

Because the kind of randomness in that link of yours only works if you assume the world runs on deterministic rules. It’s like saying we're playing a "game" with set parameters and infinite ways it could play out. Most people mistake that freedom of choice for pure chance just because it doesn't fit into old-school determinism.
Determinism is a hard pill to swallow for most people because it implies there's some sort of grand design behind everything. Anyone who isn't religious runs from that idea like the plague. But can you actually have determinism without a purpose?
To me, true randomness is a singularity. You have to admit—it's a pretty impossible concept.

Mark Torres14 said:Olivia Evans8, I define randomness as a total lack of causality.
Pure randomness or pure causality are just paradoxical, absolute concepts that flip into their opposites when taken to the extreme.
We already covered this when we talked about infinity.
The reality is, our world exists somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.
To support this "relative" determinism, look at motion and time. Time wouldn't even exist if every single particle was moving in every direction without cause. It works both ways, too. Motion happens within time, so without time, there's no motion.
The simple fact that eggs break instead of unbreaking is proof enough that some level of determinism exists in this world. Sure, you could theoretically reverse the process tomorrow, but even that's just another form of determinism.
True randomness would be if eggs were constantly breaking and unbreaking at random, leaving you totally unable to find an algorithm to predict the outcome. That would be absolute chaos.

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.

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.

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. 😁