Trick of the Language?

u didnt follow i said the opposite thing

i clearly claim that spirituality imply the rejection of else so always about one only and that is why i perceive spiritual life as evil thing that u and others enjoy usin to claim being someone

while i didnt say anything about free will and morality being related intimately i dont recognize any of such being existin even
i clearly say that wills do not exist objectively same for morality when existence is simply true

but u insist to use others for ur own allegations, i talked about freedom kindness not spirit, as the reason to recognize else existence in positive ways without necessary being a conscious act, that is why i called it kindness of some that act genereous freely

I think that the fundamental crux of the realist vs. constructionist debate is,
Does "randomness" imply unpredictibility, or does it imply a continuous distribution of probabilities?

It seems obvious (to me) that an absolute maximal propagation rate of information (general relativity) discredits the notion that everything (within a system) can interact with everything else (within a system).
Also the 'continuous distribution of probabilities' assumption, has yet to offer greater prediction power of observations of quantum physical events.

I'm off to samsara for a bit , talk to you later.

I agree. And if what's being related are packets of information, thinking of reality as either mind or matter is equally shortsighted. These packets qualify as neither, and yet somehow they make up both. There is really no reason to think as we tend to do, that matter spawned mind. We generally have no problems with thinking that awareness needs a material world to exist in. But the thought that a material world also needs an awareness to exist in just sounds weird.

A discontinuous system just means that the system has more limits then the ones you would normally expect, also there is this recent idea that the arrow of time may in fact come from the distant future towards the past which makes sense regarding phenomenology not as something which emerges but as something which is set in stone...I guess what they mean is that they recognize an ensemble...so the system is described with all its pre set limitations...I know nothing on maths unfortunately, conceptually I have a great resistance to the idea of true randomness, as I see it more like an effect from within the system and not as something legitimate per se...a continuous distribution of probability's tends to show how the entire system is "contaminated" and set in stone top to bottom a give away on how time and space are not fundamental...does any of this makes sense to you ? Remember I am not even close of getting the deep maths on this I resort more to exhaustive concept analysis...

I was referring to the distinction between continuous and discrete similar to it's usage in number theory.
Discrete like rational numbers. (countably infinite) [empty space between numbers]
Continuous like a the real numbers. (uncountably infinite) [an infinity of numbers between each number]

That (above) gets at types of infinities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number, related to the work of Georg Cantor and set theory.

Is observed "randomness" the result of discrete activity, modeled by information theory (computable)?
-or-
Is observed "randomness" a manifestation of a continuous distribution of probabilities.

What you mean is that real numbers contain the set of rational numbers because there are infinity's bigger then others, that is, infinity's with a magnitude potential greater then others...I am familiar with Zeno Paradox and I know what Continuous and Discrete refer to Matt...being the case that Continuous equates to "magical" and Discrete resonates with rational...as I see it you might keep adding those numbers to space and time just as well one for each plank scale minimum packet of space. In my mind the model should be finite and discrete with the final sequencing conditions described in the string of numbers "causal gravitationally" similar to the initial description which in turn gives rise to a loop infinity, a loop of rational number sequences describing the geometry of reality like you have in a fractal Mandelbrot zoom repeating and repeating forever with a fixed finite amount of info...its like you simulate real numbers but they aren't really real numbers sort to speak...

Still keep thinking Randomness is just another wording for I don't know wtf is going on...I can't even picture simulation of motion itself with true randomness in play...as an equal probability a truly random probability for 2 events shouldn't give rise to any in turn of the other...very much like the cartoon which says in step 2 a miracle happens...remember ?

Randomness f***s up the mechanic of causality even if the causality is being just simulated...a perfect elegant model shouldn't work like that.
That all being said and explained, probability in my mind model doesn't exist but there is a simulation, an "effort", for bringing about a Universe which in a motion inside perspective simulates probability in its architecture...a Universe which is "obsessed" in simulating "freedom" sort to speak for those who observe it from inside through apparent balance of conditions !

I don't even really think that you have to go so far as assuming a cosmogenic purpose [obsessed with simulating freedom].
One only need to posit that something is discrete and computable and then run the iteration continuously. That's one perspective.
The other perspective is that all of the iterations have already run, thus you are looking at the computational space (all possible computed states that would ever be reached).
Of course we are in a part of the computational space that appears to have awareness and freedom. Simply the anthropic principle. We are in a part that has those apparent conditions, because if we weren't, we(observers) wouldn't exist.
In this view randomness is just hidden variables.
It is apparent unpredictablity with the system. An agent within the system would have to step outside of the system, to have a perfect representation of events within the system.

Exactly, hidden variables that would require you to step out of the system to detect them...meaning you as a sub set cannot out compute the final set..."you" are the one who "moves" and searches but the final set is at rest...is computed and done.

My intention was not to suggest a cosmogenic purpose is factual, that was just a figure of speech regarding the elegance on which that apparent "freedom" works well for us as it is central for our hapiness...

Seems a more elegant and simple model, than any other I've seen.

My all conceptual thing with infinity which is central for going one way or the other was to think how can you simulate Infinity without truly having it...it must be a loop ! You get the best of both worlds and you explain away the miracle of motion itself...that was how I got to the unmoved mover...

All about aleph numbers.
I have said it before but I think that a very fundamental question is Discrete vs. Continuous.
If real numbers (rational + irrational) are real then I might have a problem.

I don't know if my modeling is simple or simpleton, I honestly wish I could tell the difference...

I agree there is 'no' randomness. Could I explain why...? Not in this thread and I frankly, couldn't be bothered to, there's no randomness.... that's a far as I'm going... so Fil... stick with it.

More good stuff... Fil... in IMHO... sorry about all this positiveness ... but you're right on the money at the moment as far as I'm concerned.

No no such thing as truly existent motion... I'd say... that clears up a lot of mess.

Well ty igm I appreciate your feedback !

It is interesting that quantum physics defines "motion" as a sub-aspect of "momentum" which itself is subject to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

I have often argued that there isn't really randomness, just the appearance of randomness, and that this appearance of randomness happens because we don't know all the variables.
I am not so certain anymore. There is no doubt that "randomness" is a useful concept in the context of our lives, but the problem probably lies in the definition.
Also, I am not sure that the concept of probability can be said to exist or not. It is a way of understanding, a method of calculating to acquire a certain kind of information which we place value on. Probability only deals with events in relation to expectations of those events. It is a human relational mechanism. I think there may be much to learn by thinking of all of humanity's social interactions in probabilistic terms. We could ask ourselves if the level of advancement our species reaches relates to the few, brilliant individuals, or if it just relates to our numbers.
If you have a population of one thousand, what is the probability that someone thinks of a way to land on the moon? How much more likely does that become if the population is increased to 1 billion?
We are a few billion people by now. How many do we have to be for the event of discovering insterstellar travel to become likely to happen?

I don't know of any models that try to think of it this way, though that is no indication they don't exist. I haven't really looked that hard for them. But someone probably tried to answer the question; is there a connection between the advancement of our species and the size of the population? My initial thought is that there has to be.

Interesting post, Cry, this matter of the relation between population size and technological advancement. It seems to me that demographic pressures, i.e., overpopulation requires technological solutions contributing to technological advancement. Small populations can live off the land with less technological mediations. Alduous Huxley once gave some lectures (they may have been published) on what he termed The Double Crisis (something like that) in which he posited the likelihood that population pressures are the basic "cause" of many social problems--resulting in the overorganization of society.
I hope I've got that right.
I also like your suggestions on "randomness". It seems to me that Nature may have levels of organization we cannot perceive and therefore consider "disorganization" (or randomness).