Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Okay

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Mario Dovalina on July 9, 2002 15:01:52 UTC

***Don't read more than what's written.***

With you, I have to. I consistently miss your point when I don't.

***What if there's no bigger picture?***

Seems like a silly question to me. Tell me, is this sequence random?

7 1 4 2 8 5

It looks like it, doesn't it? And taken alone, sure, it is. But actually it's a repeated decimel of 5/7. It's not random, but the bigger picture (its source) must be taken into account. With random numbers that you pick off of the top of your head, sure, it's a lot more complex, but I think the principle is the same.

***The question makes no sense. 'Random' (or mystery) is just something humans say when they fail to perceive order in a series of observations. Without observations, without observers, without an attempt to perceive order, there's no randomness.***

Assuming your definition of randomness (unpredictability.) I'm asking if, using my definition of randomness (that multiple outcomes are possible -not predetermined- from a system with one set of inputs) is it possible the universe functions on this level? If we use this definition, humans and consciousness are not needed to perpetuate the randomness.

***No, it is impossible by definition. If the future were set then it wouldn't be the future, it would be the past.***

That seems ludicrous to me. Please elaborate before I reply to this comment.

*** Any reasonable definition of freewill (or consciousness for that matter) ends up implying that everything in the universe has freewill (or is conscious).***

You're right about that, but I thought I'd wait to bring it up. It is quite interesting, though.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins