RE: How flexible is the principle of causality?
March 16, 2014 at 7:37 pm
(This post was last modified: March 16, 2014 at 7:39 pm by Mudhammam.)
(March 16, 2014 at 6:34 pm)bennyboy Wrote:(March 15, 2014 at 1:53 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: What do you think bennyboy?I think "randomness" is just a euphemism for "goddammit can't predict it." Since we are limited in the dimensions which we can observe and in which we can interact, we cannot know if the arrangement of properties in another dimension lies behind apparent randomness.
There's an unwritten rule in science that I disagree with: that all mysteries can one day be revealed through scientific progression. I don't think there's any rational reason to believe this to be the case. In fact, we can already see this not to be the case.
If the Universe isn't in principle fundamentally random at some level, how does one escape the conclusion of fatalism? That's one thing I haven't been able to grasp--how it is that "hard determinists" can avoid the notion that the only possible Universe is the one that is. In some sense that might be correct but...
It doesn't seem right to me.
