RE: How flexible is the principle of causality?
March 16, 2014 at 11:34 pm
(This post was last modified: March 16, 2014 at 11:35 pm by bennyboy.)
(March 16, 2014 at 7:37 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:Well, from the perspective of us living life in the universe, what's the difference whether it's "truly" random, or apparently random because some inter-dimensional hidden variable is manifesting in ways that are intrinsically obscure to us?(March 16, 2014 at 6:34 pm)bennyboy Wrote: 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.
And what does randomness mean in this regard? Since you presumably have no control over the random elements of the universe, you are simply waiting to see how life turns out, EVEN WHEN you feel like an active participant. Whether there are theoretical "other" possible outcomes makes no difference if you are not the one determining which outcome manifests.
