|
Post by general313 on Jul 13, 2018 23:56:35 GMT
No we're not. Randomness played a big factor in thermodynamics and the study of steam engines in the 19th century. Quantitative analysis of randomness goes back even further in game theory. Randomness shows up in lots of places. Last time I had heard this argument (the one OP made) was during those freewill vs Determinism debates on old RFS board during the dying days of IMDB. Unfortunately, there's whole lot of nonsense travelling around youtube and other sites. Speaking of nonsense, maybe you missed this bit of comedy gold while you were away. imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/86655/when-jesus-flesh-drink-bloodespecially here
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 14, 2018 0:02:39 GMT
Last time I had heard this argument (the one OP made) was during those freewill vs Determinism debates on old RFS board during the dying days of IMDB. Unfortunately, there's whole lot of nonsense travelling around youtube and other sites. Speaking of nonsense, maybe you missed this bit of comedy gold while you were away. imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/86655/when-jesus-flesh-drink-bloodespecially hereWow .....Eva is usually awesome but sometimes he can be funny as hell. That was a comic gold that I had missed. Even Cash came up with a pretty cheeky one sentence.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 14, 2018 10:41:38 GMT
First, you know that films like Rain Man are works of fiction, right? Do you understand the concept of basing a movie on a real person?
The toothpick counting was included in the movie because it really happened, and he had that ability.
If a real person accurately determined the number of toothpicks in a jar or whatever, then say that, because that would be the (putatively) relevant fact. That it's shown in a film wouldn't be the relevant fact. You certainly do not understand the idea of basing a fictional work on a real person, real events, etc. if you believe that any arbitrary thing in the resultant film should or can therefore be taken as factual rather than fictional. One next question would be why you think anyone accurately saying the number of toothpicks in a jar, supposing anyone did that where it wasn't akin to winning the lottery, would have any relevance to the topic of whether randomness does or can obtain ontologically.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jul 14, 2018 11:59:58 GMT
What exactly would it mean for something to be random?
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jul 14, 2018 13:13:59 GMT
Do you understand the concept of basing a movie on a real person?
The toothpick counting was included in the movie because it really happened, and he had that ability.
If a real person accurately determined the number of toothpicks in a jar or whatever, then say that, because that would be the (putatively) relevant fact. That it's shown in a film wouldn't be the relevant fact. You certainly do not understand the idea of basing a fictional work on a real person, real events, etc. if you believe that any arbitrary thing in the resultant film should or can therefore be taken as factual rather than fictional. One next question would be why you think anyone accurately saying the number of toothpicks in a jar, supposing anyone did that where it wasn't akin to winning the lottery, would have any relevance to the topic of whether randomness does or can obtain ontologically. Yes I do understand. Sometimes they make thing up for dramatic effect but they also base certain things on real events.
Severely autistic people recognize patterns and don't take 'guesses'.
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jul 14, 2018 13:16:11 GMT
What exactly would it mean for something to be random?
Appearing out of nowhere with no rhyme or reason--which is how atheists explain the world.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jul 14, 2018 13:22:35 GMT
What exactly would it mean for something to be random?
Appearing out of nowhere with no rhyme or reason--which is how atheists explain the world.
rhyme?
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jul 14, 2018 13:27:43 GMT
Appearing out of nowhere with no rhyme or reason--which is how atheists explain the world.
rhyme? What? Now you want to know what a rhyme is?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2018 13:40:50 GMT
which is the 'belief' of atheists. No. There is no such thing as 'the belief of atheists'. Atheism is a set of responses to a single claim. Atheists have literally nothing in common outside of that. Randomness can form part of patterns. For example, if I have a thousand atoms of Rutherfordium-261, then I know that 81 seconds later I will only have 500 atoms of it - the other 500 will have decayed. But nothing can tell me that any given atom will decay and any given atom will not. It is a wholly random process. The fact that a person can quickly count a large number of items really says nothing about whether the number of items is random or not. You may as well argue that a dice roll is not random because when it lands people can count the spots. It's an idiotic thing to say. No, it's not a rhetorical question. It's a stupid question.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jul 14, 2018 14:02:14 GMT
What? Now you want to know what a rhyme is?
what does rhyming have to do with randomness?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 14, 2018 15:50:49 GMT
If a real person accurately determined the number of toothpicks in a jar or whatever, then say that, because that would be the (putatively) relevant fact. That it's shown in a film wouldn't be the relevant fact. You certainly do not understand the idea of basing a fictional work on a real person, real events, etc. if you believe that any arbitrary thing in the resultant film should or can therefore be taken as factual rather than fictional. One next question would be why you think anyone accurately saying the number of toothpicks in a jar, supposing anyone did that where it wasn't akin to winning the lottery, would have any relevance to the topic of whether randomness does or can obtain ontologically. Yes I do understand. Sometimes they make thing up for dramatic effect but they also base certain things on real events.
Severely autistic people recognize patterns and don't take 'guesses'.
In short, "based on" is not "the same as" If you're claiming that anyone would be able to consistently say the number of small items in a large jar, I'm calling hogwash without evidence of that acquired in a controlled setting.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 14, 2018 15:54:59 GMT
What exactly would it mean for something to be random? Re ontological randomness, it would be an event where it's not determined by antecedent events (causes) if there indeed is an antecedent event, where there is more than one possible state we're talking about, and where there are no hidden determiners.
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jul 14, 2018 16:00:42 GMT
Yes I do understand. Sometimes they make thing up for dramatic effect but they also base certain things on real events.
Severely autistic people recognize patterns and don't take 'guesses'.
In short, "based on" is not "the same as" If you're claiming that anyone would be able to consistently say the number of small items in a large jar, I'm calling hogwash without evidence of that acquired in a controlled setting. Are you saying that every movie that was based on a real person had nothing authentic in it?
So that movie about Audie Murphy's service in WW2 was all made up?
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jul 14, 2018 16:01:46 GMT
What exactly would it mean for something to be random? Re ontological randomness, it would be an event where it's not determined by antecedent events (causes) if there indeed is an antecedent event, where there is more than one possible state we're talking about, and where there are no hidden determiners. Exactly. And atheists believe this universe just appeared out of nowhere, and all of life was just random.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 14, 2018 16:17:02 GMT
What exactly would it mean for something to be random?
Appearing out of nowhere with no rhyme or reason--which is how atheists explain the world.
A completely baseless claim. Show me one atheist who said this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2018 16:43:20 GMT
These threads are great... Heeeyy is pathologically compelled to perpetually evidence her idiocy.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 14, 2018 16:54:24 GMT
In short, "based on" is not "the same as" If you're claiming that anyone would be able to consistently say the number of small items in a large jar, I'm calling hogwash without evidence of that acquired in a controlled setting. Are you saying that every movie that was based on a real person had nothing authentic in it?
So that movie about Audie Murphy's service in WW2 was all made up?
I'm not saying that. I'm saying what I said. "Based on" is not "the same as." Forgoing finer points of ontology, that's not to say that nothing in a film can be "the same" as reality, but any and every arbitrary thing can be different than reality, and that in no way impacts "based on," because "based on" is not "the same as."
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jul 14, 2018 16:58:03 GMT
Are you saying that every movie that was based on a real person had nothing authentic in it?
So that movie about Audie Murphy's service in WW2 was all made up?
I'm not saying that. I'm saying what I said. "Based on" is not "the same as." Forgoing finer points of ontology, that's not to say that nothing in a film can be "the same" as reality, but any and every arbitrary thing can be different than reality, and that in no way impacts "based on," because "based on" is not "the same as." Okay, fine. 'Based on' is not "the same as."
Now, what has that got to do with the topic? I said the counting toothpicks thing was based on the man's real-life ability. So far I've seen no proof to indicate otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jul 14, 2018 16:59:03 GMT
Appearing out of nowhere with no rhyme or reason--which is how atheists explain the world.
A completely baseless claim. Show me one atheist who said this. If I'm not mistaken, Goz for one is of the opinion that life emerged out of nothing, then randomness.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 14, 2018 17:00:34 GMT
Re ontological randomness, it would be an event where it's not determined by antecedent events (causes) if there indeed is an antecedent event, where there is more than one possible state we're talking about, and where there are no hidden determiners. Exactly. And atheists believe this universe just appeared out of nowhere, and all of life was just random.
Atheists do not necessarily believe anything at all about randomness. They could hold any position on that. Science doesn't posit that things are random, by the way, and that should be obvious to anyone who has gone to grade school, even. Aside from that, EVERYONE believes either that extant things either always existed or they suddenly "appeared out of nowhere." There's no other option logically. That includes beliefs about God obviously. Either God always existed or He appeared out of nowhere. That exhausts the logical options.
|
|