/lit/ - Literature

>>6769607

>>6769607
You're absolutely right, OP. Why do floods happen? Because it rained too much. Why do people die? Because our bodies can only maintain themselves for so long. Why was that car stolen? Because someone felt like stealing it. It's all for a reason.

Unless you mean because it's part of some metaphysical "plan" by an omnipotent creator, in which case, you're a fool.

>>6769607
Reasons for actions are applied by the connection you make yourself. For example, my Dad had bipolar disorder. He dropped a glass on the floor and it smashed and he perceived it as a universal message symbolising his mental state, whereas you would see a glass smashing. While there are humans to apply reasons to actions everything potentially has one depending on the perception of the observer.

>>6769607
Try arguing it is.

It's unfalsifiable

>>6769642

Nah, it wasn't determinism.

>>6769607
>am OP
Edit: All occurences occur for a reason, and all events are caused by other events.

>>6769607
bump for interest

reason is a human word. who is to say human words = real

>>6769804
Who is to say a human is real? Who is to say your two statements work of each other and aren't unrelated?

>>6769657
This post is great, because it shows how causality is just "everything happens for a reason" for atheists.

Of course, to actually be an atheist in the word's true sense, you also have to revoke your faith in causality.

>>6769657
if that was true, there would be nothing instead of something. Unless you have an esoteric view of the beginning of the universe, of course, in which case, why bother arguing with you?

>>6769648
it is by the nature of being inconsistent.

>>6769834
What do you mean by that? Nothing instead of something?

>>6769607
>>6769607

>>6769921
Anon, what is so stupid about this post?

>>6769914
How did ANYTHING come to exist without something there to cause it?

You can't argue it was god, since god is inconsistent with principle of sufficient reason (him not being caused by something etc.)

So how is creation possible with nothing there to cause it?

>>6769657
>implying causality is a deity

>>6769967
over infinite timeline the probability of nothing undergoing a spontaneous declension into something approaches 1

>>6770008
Are you sure that's how probability work ? Or are you just a random /lit/ guy posting bullshit ?

>>6769997
meant for > >>6769830

>>6770015
75% sure

also yes

>>6769967
What you're saying implies that EVERYTHING could not have happened for a reason, because if everything happens for a reason, then the very first thing created must have been created, and it results in a paradox. But, that's not to say the first thing happened for no reason.

My theory, is that there are other places with completely different metaphysical apparatuses that are impossible to sense by us. Like, they wouldn't have area or space or density. That's not to say they have anti- area, space, or density, they just don't have that metaphysic fundamental. Same goes with logic. The other places aren't illogical, but they don't have logic. They don't have something to substitute logic either. It's just, different, and their metaphysical fundamentals are impossible to explain unless you were created (thats suggesting if creation even is a metaphysical fundamental in the other world) in the universe.
So basically, the point of life is in another universe with a different metaphysical apparatus, and the very first event that caused every other event, is a variable, something we can never know.

Does that make sense? I've started to doubt myself. The more I repeat it the dumber it sounds.

>>6770040
You make it sound like "over time the chance that something happens approaches 1" whereas it is more something like "over time the chance that something possible happens approaches 1". Here the spontaneous declension into something, which is a rather esoteric formula, refers to the apparition of matter which is kind of a big deal. Feel free to post links to the corresponding theory tho

>>6770066
I know I've read it somewhere else but the only hit that turned up when I searched for it just now was a comment on a scientific american article.

The basic idea is that nothing is a superposition of everything, in the same way that white light is a superposition of all its constituent colors.

>>6770102
>nothing is a superposition of everything

but seriously post any link even that comment you refer to I'm intredasted

>>6770117
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle#Wave_interference

there's the wiki on superposition, linked to wave interference for its illustration of how two waves 180degrees out of phase perfectly cancel to create a flatline.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/thinkers-talk-about-nothing-13-03-21/

ctrl+f superposition to see the comment I referred to.

This is bugging me cos I know I've seen this elsewhere, it seems like a fairly obvious idea as well but I can't find any other sources/mentions.

>>6770143
Thanks

This statement is true. Being true and correct as a state of being.

Why do particles exist? Why do the rules binding them exist? Is existence not an occurance? Please try to answer something other than "existance occurs for a reason", try to tell the reason instead of saying there is a one without proof.

>>6770198
I gave a reason upthread

existence occurs because over infinite timeline the probability of nothing (being a superposition of everything) undergoing a spontaneous declension into something approaches 1.

nothing is ontologically basic.

>>6770366
Is it truly spontaneous ? I mean you need an underlying mechanism, ie some kind of prime mover.

>>6770374
lol iunno. Spitballing here mostly.
>prime mover
god makes this much more complicated, not less.

some kind of decay, or something like this seems to fit better to me

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation#Quantum_fluctuations_of_a_field

this seems esp relevant

"A quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of empty space, as allowed by the uncertainty principle."

wooOOooOOO

If you mean that there is an underlying mechanism to any occurrence, I ask

Why mechanism

And you will conclude that there is no why. Mechanical God is dead, teleological holistic God is yet to be born. The one that dictates the occurrence as containing all the information needed to describe itself, independent of causal linkages
guys does this make any sense at all i type these things like im possessed or something

All reasons reason an occurrence that isn't necessarily an occurrence nor necessarily reasonable

>>6770615
It made sense vaguely, but that might be just me being stupid :/
And I wasn't saying necessarily that it was a mechanism, as that would imply someone /thing/deity applied this logic that everything happens for a reason to us. I'm not saying a being did it, I'm just saying that I believe nothing happens for no reason. I don't know if that makes sense either.

>>6770618
Can you dumb that down a little for an anon? Your sassy wordplay is making me foam at the mouth with confusion. I know that sounds kind of stupid.
Are you saying all things that happen, happen for a reason, but the things aren't really things, and don't happen for a reason? I'm confused.

>he hasn't read Hume

>>6772054
To be honest, I haven't read any philosophy books completely, outside of books about the history of philosophy by non-philosophers. I'm reading On The Immortality of The Soul by St. Augustine though, and after that I'm going to read On The Treatise of The Divine Government.

Do you have any suggestions for David Hume?

bump

>>6769607
>>6769642
How did the universe come into being?

>>6772182

look at >>6770044

also, it has never been objectified whether the universe ever, "came into being." It could've always just, "been." Forever.

>>6770143
Disclaimer, the first link has essentially nothing to do with what he's talking about. Try reading A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss.

>>6772197
If it's always been then it has no reason, it's removed from action -> reaction

>>6772234
Oh, okay I guess you're right. But does what I said before that (the post ITT I gave you the number-thing for) make sense?

>>6770008
>mfw I got a tshirt with this exactly sentence

Welcome to infancy, OP. How are you just figuring this out now?

>>6772064
also interested in this>>6772064

>>6772247
I need to think more about it before i can answer.
There's a link ITT to a comment that theorizes non-existence could be the superposition of all existence.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/thinkers-talk-about-nothing-13-03-21/
>What if nothing is really a superposition of everything?

>Sure, it has no size, no dimensions, no mass, and exhibits no measurable forces; however, in the same way that white light is a superposition of all frequencies of colored light, perhaps nothing can be manipulated in some similar way, like a prism does for white light to break it apart in to frequencies of colored light.

>Even the tiniest imperfection in the absolute perfection of nothingness might trigger the superposition of everything to split in some way that causes infinity of everything to come pouring out.

Of course that still leaves the question of what imperfection could cause it to split like that.
If non-existence is the superposition of everything then maybe things exist because it's easier to exist than to not exist.

>>6772332
That kind of makes sense. I've heard a couple times before, that time is an illusion, and that all of the history in this universe are just happening in one infinitesimally small moment, but our brains create time to understand it. And it would make sense if the brain also stretched out infinitesimally small area and space. Even logic could be an illusion in some ways.

>>6773191
It's true. Time exists only for massive objects. Time is a property of mass. For light, time doesn't pass and the universe is over as soon as it begins.

>>6773191
Well time is relative so i don't think you can say time is "really" happening in one infinitesimally small moment as there seems to be no objective time

>>6773213
Thank you sci!

>>6773213
I'm not a hundred percent sure what you're saying, anon. Am kind of slow.
Are you saying time exists only for humans/things with brains? Or are you saying time only exists for big things? Or are you saying only physical things can have time but not energies like light/fire/electricity/whatever?

>>6773220
Well thats what I'm saying. Every single thing in history is happen at one point of "time," so small, it isn't an increment of time. It's not really a "moment" either it's just thats the only words I can conjure up to explain no time.
Like the "moment" the universe is created, is the same exact "moment" the universe ends.
I guess what I'm saying is all moments packed into one infinitesimal "moment," would look like that visually.
I hope that makes sense :/

>>6773213
know any books/articles on this?

>>6772182
It imploded and then exploded again, like a phoenix bursting from the ashes. It has existed in this cycle for eternity. Cause and effect for eternity.

>>6772182
Through a certain mechanism we don't understand yet. Note: this mechanism was probably not conscious or resembling anything like the human mind.

>>6769607
All words were invented by humans. Go to other kinds of brains and you don't have "occurrences" or "reasons" or even "truth". They are not perceived, therefore the statement is not true there.

>>6773298
It's possibly not something the human mind can ever grasp either.

>>6773313
So you're saying that the premise, all occurences occur for a reason and all events are caused by other events, is untrue because it can be worded differently or use words in different languages?
Because if you do you're going on a more Wittgensteinian tangent in the wrong direction.
This thread is about causality, not solipsism. Besides, just because something isn't perceived doesn't mean its not true.

>>6773342
I'm talking about animal minds, insect minds, plant minds, cellular minds, etc. Do you really think all of those minds interpret "occurrences" or "reasons" or "truth" in the world? Of course not. Like Nietzsche says, we have no organ for truth, in other words "truth" is dependent on your organic structure. For the human mind, determinism might be perceived to be true, but this is not the case for every other mind, therefore the statement is not true in every case. Reality is subjective.

>>6773352
I understand you're point (probably, unless I'm missing something) but what you're saying (I think) is that "truth," and such, aren't real because animals dont perceive it as such.
But it could just as well be that "truth" and such are real but the animals don't have the ability to perceive it.
Just because an animal doesn't perceive that a man is dead, doesn't mean the man isn't dead.
But anyways, thats what I think.
Let me know if I'm being totally stupid and misinterpreted it because I feel like I might've. Am really new to this whole philosophy thing :/

>>6773418
woops:
your*

>>6773418
I'm not saying that they aren't real, just that they aren't ALWAYS real. Otherwise I pretty much agree.

>>6769607
Who's reason?
And by extension, who's will?

>>6769607
We have fundamental conditions of occurrence in literature (accident, coincidence), the definition is self-evident.

>>6769607
No they don't. The ball's in your court now, OP.

>>6769642
no, no, the reason for all of these is you touching yourself at night

>>6773462
I'm not saying this from a deterministic P.O.V. of a deity causing everything, I'm just saying there is a constant flow of causality.
>>6773502
what.

>>6773622
what about meta-events that happen for no reason at all

like, my keys aren't where I left them
because my dad decided to hide them under a rock
>fucking why

>>6773880
You're dad felt compelled to hide them under a rock, that's why. And he's not going to feel compelled to do that for no reason. It could be, just so he could do something for no reason (which is the reason) or he has some mental illness where does things for no reason. And then the reason for that would be because of a genetic problem or brain chemicals and all that shit. Et cetera.

If you're saying, whats the benefit of the scenario/whats the purpose of the scenario, its literally just because your dad wanted to do it satisfy himself.

so yeah. yeah.

>2015
>people still believe in time as a linear concept
>people still believe the universe ever "came into being"

Un-fucking-believable

>>6773941
If it's so unbelievable then please explain to us why

>time isn't a linear concept
and
>why people still believe the universe came into being

>>6773946
I'm sorry but I highly doubt that I will be the one to persuade you, especially given the limitations of the medium we are using to converse, and I'm not going to waste the remainder of my break between the two shifts I'm working today to try.

>>6773960
You could just answer the question without elaborating on it. Even if I'm not persuaded it would still interesting to know. Just saying.

>>6773932
he wasn't satisfied
he felt bad about doing it

>>6774089
Your dads pretty fucking weird.
But I guess then the purpose was to teach him not to hide the keys. Now that he feels bad about it, he wont do it again.

>>6774199
He's done it before and felt bad, and he'll do it again I'm certain.

this whole fucking thread, i swear

>>6774204
He keeps forgetting, he has bad memory, or there is something wrong in his brain where he doesnt learn from his mistakes.
You're probably gonna say, "he doesn't have all of those things."
Then he just doesn't learn from his mistake after multiple times.
Then you're probably going to say "yes he does," or it's been thousands of times, or something to denounce that.
Then I would say, either:
A: To provide challenges.
or
B: it's to displace something bad that was going to happen.

this is getting interesting, mmm.

>>6774222
>I posted it again mom

>>6772048

this isn't really a reformulation of what was written but

you can't separate mind from knowledge just as you can't separate discovery from invention, such that finding reasons for things is the fault of reasoning in the first place

If you stop being so frontal lobe you will notice that cause and effect can for example occur simultaneously such that the distinction becomes unnecessary really

but we keep looking for causes and effects it's like a cognitive hobby
>seek it and ye shall find it

>>6774421
Ok, that makes sense.

>>6774230
>You're probably gonna say
ha ha, nah

What it makes me wonder is this-
you say every event happens because of a cause
The forming of a thought and the subsequent resolution to act is an event, so it must have a cause.
How do we determine the cause of whims that arise from no very obvious input?
Forgetfulness can't create input, it just clears space to receive input from somewhere else.
Mental illness doesn't inspire any input on it's own either, it just screws with signals and crosses wires.

>>6774421
>>seek it and ye shall find it
wisdom

itt: newfags

>>6769967
its really easy: the universe always existed; it did not have a beginning. nothing caused it. it just is. think about it. what is a "beginning"? it's just a convenient way for us to distinguish between events. in reality nothing begins, or ends, it just changes. so is the universe.

>>6775080
Not 100% sure what you're saying.

The last two paragraphs are evident to the claim i was making, which doesn't make sense unless you're agreeing with me.

People itt are so fucking new. The problem of perception is an unanswerable paradox that acts as a giant existential red herring for all of humanity. Sure it's possible that causality 'exists' as a principle that we merely discovered from our species' vantage point in the universe. It is also possible that it is an organismic evolutionary development that happens to promote survival.

The point is that we cannot really perceive of an existence where phenomena are not causal as we will inevitably conceive of it adhering to an underlying causal rubric (if your question at this point is 'why', you are already proving my point), so the best course of action is to simply concede our cognitive limitations and proceed through the only perceptual tools we have.

>>6775389
Since you think that every event has a cause
Do you also think the cause of every event is discernible?

>>6775437
Not entirely sure what you're saying (again. I probably look pretty stupid).

I don't know if this answers your question, but there is no objective single cause and effect of any individual event. It can be argued about hundreds of things that caused it, and none of them are totally objective if they are true causes or effects. But I'm saying that it /is/ objective that every event/occurrence has /an/ objective, whether it be out of many or just the single one.

>>6769607
For a reason, or for a cause?

>>6775465
Both. Everything causes something and is caused by something. Also this: >>6769657

>>6769607
pic name

>>6775460
What I mean to ask is
If every single event has a cause, is it possible to tell what the cause of every single event is?

>>6775487

>>6775477

Is this what you where looking for?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causa_sui

I can conceive of something occurring for no reason, so it is metaphysically possible for something to occur for no reason. We shouldn't be hasty and apply properties universally when it is possible that they are not the case in some instances.

>>6775607
Tell me what it is you think happens for no reason and I will destroy it in a battle of wit.

>>6769617
/thread

>>6775993
no no. It's not /thread.
>>6775607 was about to say something. wait ur turn.

>>6775850
god hates us for no reason

>>6776092

wel

i hate to break it to you anon

but god isnt you know

forshizzle real

he just >might

be real.

>>6776098
Well SOMEthing in this universe thinks we ought to suffer, and I don't see a reason for that.

>>6776190
>SOMEthing
humans

>>6776190
Well it's not even objective that SOMEthing thinks we ought to suffer although I understand what you're saying and in a way, kind of agree.

Not sure if it was a joke but >>6776203 made a good point.

So who started the first event? Checkmate.

>>6776834
Read the thread.