Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

[GE Morton]

But wait; what? The Cosmos (universe) is self-caused? Or have I misunderstood your intended meaning?

Yes, she contradicts herself there. Uncaused and self-caused are not the same thing. She describes it with both terms.

[Belindi]

But don't parts of the universe affect each other?

Oh yes! I may be a bit unclear as to what, exactly, you mean by "cosmos", but that I'm quite sure of. All parts of the universe are connected, indivisibly and irreversibly.

By Cosmos I mean that each event is a necessary event because each event fits a whole (or Cosmos ) that is the uncaused cause of all events. So it seems that what you call universe I call Cosmos.

I give it a capital letter because Cosmos , as self caused, is unlike it's effects or parts. I don't mean to imply deity by my use of the capital C.

Fair enough.

...

But wait; what? The Cosmos (universe) is self-caused? Or have I misunderstood your intended meaning?

Cosmos uniquely is self caused. Remember that Cosmos sustains the whole system.
If there is not a unique self- caused Cosmos there remains only Chaos upon which living creatures impose meaning and purpose; that's idealism(immaterialism). The mind-made Cosmos is fragile unless 'mind' is replaced by experience. Mind is experience of the body as Spinoza observed. Experience can't be analysed and is never contingent upon mind, body, or anything else.

[Pattern-chaser]

But wait; what? The Cosmos (universe) is self-caused? Or have I misunderstood your intended meaning?

Cosmos uniquely is self caused.

The universe is its own cause? The universe caused itself to come into existence? That's a bit recursive for me; circular too. Is this not you, looking to assign a cause ... because there must be a cause, right? For myself, I see no compelling reason to conclude that the universe has a cause, or that it doesn't...

If there is not a unique self-caused Cosmos, there remains only Chaos...

How would that be so, and what has it to do with the universe being self-caused?

The mind-made Cosmos...

Now I'm getting in too deep. The Cosmos (universe) was created by mind? Whose mind? God's?

[Belindi]

But wait; what? The Cosmos (universe) is self-caused? Or have I misunderstood your intended meaning?

Cosmos uniquely is self caused.

The universe is its own cause? The universe caused itself to come into existence? That's a bit recursive for me; circular too. Is this not you, looking to assign a cause ... because there must be a cause, right? For myself, I see no compelling reason to conclude that the universe has a cause, or that it doesn't...

If there is not a unique self-caused Cosmos, there remains only Chaos...

How would that be so, and what has it to do with the universe being self-caused?

The mind-made Cosmos...

Now I'm getting in too deep. The Cosmos (universe) was created by mind? Whose mind? God's?

All minds that can experience. (Better if I had said, not mind, but minds.)
You are not getting in too deep, I promise I won't be mysterious or mystical.

[Pattern-chaser]

The mind-made Cosmos...

Now I'm getting in too deep. The Cosmos (universe) was created by mind? Whose mind? God's?

You are not getting in too deep, I promise I won't be mysterious or mystical.

How kind.

All minds that can experience. (Better if I had said, not mind, but minds.)

So the Cosmos (universe) was created by minds that would be tethered to that Cosmos at some point in its future, but which did not exist at the point (time) of creation? That rather throws time out of the window, doesn't it? So the Cosmos would be 'space' but not 'time', yes? All physical dimensions, but no chronological existence, which is to say, no change; a static Cosmos.

[Belindi]

The mind-made Cosmos...

Now I'm getting in too deep. The Cosmos (universe) was created by mind? Whose mind? God's?

You are not getting in too deep, I promise I won't be mysterious or mystical.

How kind.

All minds that can experience. (Better if I had said, not mind, but minds.)

So the Cosmos (universe) was created by minds that would be tethered to that Cosmos at some point in its future, but which did not exist at the point (time) of creation? That rather throws time out of the window, doesn't it? So the Cosmos would be 'space' but not 'time', yes? All physical dimensions, but no chronological existence, which is to say, no change; a static Cosmos.

A static Cosmos, yes. The static Cosmos contains all experiences including experience of time as duration and time as sequential events. The static Cosmos can't change as it's eternal.The static Cosmos is natura naturans , and time is a thing of nature i.e. one of the natura naturata. Spinoza's theory of existence is not pantheistic but panentheistic.

There is some debate in the literature as to whether God is also to be identified with Natura naturata. The more likely reading is that God, as Nature, is both Natura naturans and Natura naturata, and that the infinite and finite modes are not just effects of God or Nature’s power but actually inhere in and express that infinite substance.

(Stanford)

[value]

Cosmos uniquely is self caused. Remember that Cosmos sustains the whole system.
If there is not a unique self- caused Cosmos there remains only Chaos upon which living creatures impose meaning and purpose; that's idealism(immaterialism). The mind-made Cosmos is fragile unless 'mind' is replaced by experience. Mind is experience of the body as Spinoza observed. Experience can't be analysed and is never contingent upon mind, body, or anything else.

The indicated Chaos would be the idea of 'pure' chaos or randomness - an idea of a concept in which no 'pattern' can exist - which would seem like an absurd idea from the perspective of causality or the idea of the cosmos that depends on the nature of a pattern.

When considering the absurd nature of the idea of pure chaos as origin of the cosmos however, one should not forget the ability or potential of the consideration per se - i.e. 'the observer' manifested as philosophical exploration - thus it would be invalid in my opinion to conclude that the cosmos requires a cause and thus that it is necessarily self-caused.

In my opinion what the absurdness of the concept pure randomness with regard the existence of the cosmos implies is that one is to explain the fundamental nature (potential) of the idea of 'pattern'.

When viewing the idea 'cosmos' one is to explain the begin of a pattern by which the idea can be possible.

The origin of a pattern cannot be a pattern thus it would be invalid in my opinion to consider anything of a 'causal' nature to lay at the root of the cosmos. Instead, what can be concluded is that the origin of a pattern must be meaningful.

The origin of the cosmos therefore would be 'pure meaning' - an aspect that is not of 'repeatable nature' and thus cannot be comprehended empirically or causally. It would underlay the concept 'begin' (of a pattern) fundamentally - of any philosophical consideration or 'option' - as what empirically can be described as an observer.

An observer would logically signify a pattern - assign meaning - and thus must precede a pattern fundamentally. The begin introduced by an observer (mind) is therefore the begin of the cosmos and what fundamentally underlays the observer is not of a repeatable or empirical nature. That aspect is not pure Chaos or randomness (which would be pattern-less without meaningful relevance) but instead a different concept - a 'pure meaning' that is meaningfully relevant to the cosmos.

I have been in a discussion with GE Morton about the meaning of the term 'meaning'. The way I view it is that the simplest deviation of the idea of pure randomness implies meaning in the form of a pattern.

Again, "meaning" and "value" are relative terms, which relate things to persons (or other sentient creatures). And, no, "anything that can be seen" is not "value." That is a misuse of that term. Anything may HAVE value to some person or other, but without the valuer there is no "value."

While GE Morton's argument that meaning is always relevant to a subjective valuer (mind) might be valid, that must be true fundamentally to anything of subjective nature in my opinion and thus to 'the cosmos' as a whole.

[Belindi]

Cosmos uniquely is self caused. Remember that Cosmos sustains the whole system.
If there is not a unique self- caused Cosmos there remains only Chaos upon which living creatures impose meaning and purpose; that's idealism(immaterialism). The mind-made Cosmos is fragile unless 'mind' is replaced by experience. Mind is experience of the body as Spinoza observed. Experience can't be analysed and is never contingent upon mind, body, or anything else.

The indicated Chaos would be the idea of 'pure' chaos or randomness - an idea of a concept in which no 'pattern' can exist - which would seem like an absurd idea from the perspective of causality or the idea of the cosmos that depends on the nature of a pattern.

When considering the absurd nature of the idea of pure chaos as origin of the cosmos however, one should not forget the ability or potential of the consideration per se - i.e. 'the observer' manifested as philosophical exploration - thus it would be invalid in my opinion to conclude that the cosmos requires a cause and thus that it is necessarily self-caused.

In my opinion what the absurdness of the concept pure randomness with regard the existence of the cosmos implies is that one is to explain the fundamental nature (potential) of the idea of 'pattern'.

When viewing the idea 'cosmos' one is to explain the begin of a pattern by which the idea can be possible.

The origin of a pattern cannot be a pattern thus it would be invalid in my opinion to consider anything of a 'causal' nature to lay at the root of the cosmos. Instead, what can be concluded is that the origin of a pattern must be meaningful.

The origin of the cosmos therefore would be 'pure meaning' - an aspect that is not of 'repeatable nature' and thus cannot be comprehended empirically or causally. It would underlay the concept 'begin' (of a pattern) fundamentally - of any philosophical consideration or 'option' - as what empirically can be described as an observer.

An observer would logically signify a pattern - assign meaning - and thus must precede a pattern fundamentally. The begin introduced by an observer (mind) is therefore the begin of the cosmos and what fundamentally underlays the observer is not of a repeatable or empirical nature. That aspect is not pure Chaos or randomness (which would be pattern-less without meaningful relevance) but instead a different concept - a 'pure meaning' that is meaningfully relevant to the cosmos.

I have been in a discussion with @GE Morton about the meaning of the term 'meaning'. The way I view it is that the simplest deviation of the idea of pure randomness implies meaning in the form of a pattern.

Again, "meaning" and "value" are relative terms, which relate things to persons (or other sentient creatures). And, no, "anything that can be seen" is not "value." That is a misuse of that term. Anything may HAVE value to some person or other, but without the valuer there is no "value."

While GE Morton's argument that meaning is always relevant to a subjective valuer (mind) might be valid, that must be true fundamentally to anything of subjective nature in my opinion and thus to 'the cosmos' as a whole.

The observer is experience, and nothing but experience. Individuals' personalities pertain to change , measurement, and separation which are material to the everyday world that most of us inhabit, but are concepts that don't limit the study of what exists.

Experience applies to both Natura Naturata and also to absolute experience. Absolute experience is not only the sum total of all individual experiences of Natura Naturata but also the Gestalt absolute to which pertains relations between Natura Naturata.

Causal determinism attracts lot of flak which is well deserved when causal determinism is reduced to causal chains in sequential time. Circumstances have durable , perhaps infinite, effects. The infinite quality of circumstances is illustrated by the nomic connections between events which we are all aware of. I refer to e.g. the Morning Star event and the Evening Star event are together caused by the planet Venus. E.g. The warming and the expansion of gas are together caused by the nature of gas. Please see Ted Honderich for a full discussion of causal chains, causal connections, and nomic connections.

[Pattern-chaser]

A static Cosmos, yes. The static Cosmos contains all experiences including experience of time as duration and time as sequential events. The static Cosmos can't change as it's eternal.

Then how does change come about, and where does it come about? [I base my assessment that change does exist on my own empirical observations.] Not in the (static) Cosmos, so where?

Oh, and how can a static Cosmos embrace time? After all, if it's static, it never changes, so time really has no meaning at all, does it? I.e. "sequential events" are quite impossible, yes?

[GE Morton]

Oh, and how can a static Cosmos embrace time? After all, if it's static, it never changes, so time really has no meaning at all, does it? I.e. "sequential events" are quite impossible, yes?

Many don't grasp the inextricable connection between change and time.

[Belindi]

A static Cosmos, yes. The static Cosmos contains all experiences including experience of time as duration and time as sequential events. The static Cosmos can't change as it's eternal.

Then how does change come about, and where does it come about? [I base my assessment that change does exist on my own empirical observations.] Not in the (static) Cosmos, so where?

Oh, and how can a static Cosmos embrace time? After all, if it's static, it never changes, so time really has no meaning at all, does it? I.e. "sequential events" are quite impossible, yes?

There are two causal orders or dimensions governing the production and actions of particular things. On the one hand, they are determined by the general laws of the universe that follow immediately from God’s natures. On the other hand, each particular thing is determined to act and to be acted upon by other particular things. Thus, the actual behavior of a body in motion is a function not just of the universal laws of motion, but also of the other bodies in motion and rest surrounding it and with which it comes into contact.

Spinoza’s metaphysics of God is neatly summed up in a phrase that occurs in the Latin (but not the original Dutch) edition of the Ethics: “God, or Nature”, Deus, sive Natura: “That eternal and infinite being we call God, or Nature, acts from the same necessity from which he exists” (Part IV, Preface). It is an ambiguous phrase, since Spinoza could be read as trying either to divinize nature or to naturalize God. But for the careful reader there is no mistaking Spinoza’s intention. The friends who, after his death, published his writings left out the “or Nature” clause from the more widely accessible Dutch version, probably out of fear of the reaction that this identification would, predictably, arouse among a vernacular audience.

There are, Spinoza insists, two sides of Nature. First, there is the active, productive aspect of the universe—God and his attributes, from which all else follows. This is what Spinoza, employing the same terms he used in the Short Treatise, calls Natura naturans, “naturing Nature”. Strictly speaking, this is identical with God. The other aspect of the universe is that which is produced and sustained by the active aspect, Natura naturata, “natured Nature”.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Time as limited duration is perhaps our main intimation of change (space is another) and is an attribute of Deus, sive Natura. People, desks, chairs, trees are Natura naturata which are all determined by the cicumstances of change.

I find it helpful to picture Natura Naturata as the "myriad creatures" of the Tao Te Ching. I also think that experience, which is a perquisite of sentient beings, is what links each one of the myriad beings to absolute experience i.e. Natura Naturans. This is a panentheist interpretation which is not a million miles from
incarnations of the deities of incarnational religious myths.

[Belindi]

Oh, and how can a static Cosmos embrace time? After all, if it's static, it never changes, so time really has no meaning at all, does it? I.e. "sequential events" are quite impossible, yes?

Many don't grasp the inextricable connection between change and time.

That is true. I hope there are ways to explain or even simply describe the connection so that it may be grasped. I think a physicist , one who is also accustomed to teaching children can describe and even explain the connection.

I once attended a series of lectures entitled Time, Space, and Force
where the lecturer explained these idea to adult non-physicists.
The book The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra is still a good one for beginners and entertainingly readable.

[Pattern-chaser]

Time as limited duration is perhaps our main intimation of change (space is another) and is an attribute of Deus, sive Natura. People, desks, chairs, trees are Natura naturata which are all determined by the circumstances of change.

I think that change is inseparably linked to time. Without time, there can be no change. Because change describes how something alters over time, yes?

Alternatively, if we look at the Cosmos as a spacetime entity, then there is no (external) time, as it is contained within the thing itself. So there is no change external to the spacetime entity that is the Cosmos. Is this something like you're aiming at?

[Belindi]

Time as limited duration is perhaps our main intimation of change (space is another) and is an attribute of Deus, sive Natura. People, desks, chairs, trees are Natura naturata which are all determined by the circumstances of change.

I think that change is inseparably linked to time. Without time, there can be no change. Because change describes how something alters over time, yes?

Alternatively, if we look at the Cosmos as a spacetime entity, then there is no (external) time, as it is contained within the thing itself. So there is no change external to the spacetime entity that is the Cosmos. Is this something like you're aiming at?

Yes we are on the same page. Einstein showed time is relative to the perspective of the observer.

I'd add to what you wrote. The perspective of the observer is subjective experience. There is an untold number of subjective experiences.

[value]

The observer is experience, and nothing but experience. Individuals' personalities pertain to change , measurement, and separation which are material to the everyday world that most of us inhabit, but are concepts that don't limit the study of what exists.

Experience applies to both Natura Naturata and also to absolute experience. Absolute experience is not only the sum total of all individual experiences of Natura Naturata but also the Gestalt absolute to which pertains relations between Natura Naturata.

Causal determinism attracts lot of flak which is well deserved when causal determinism is reduced to causal chains in sequential time. Circumstances have durable , perhaps infinite, effects. The infinite quality of circumstances is illustrated by the nomic connections between events which we are all aware of. I refer to e.g. the Morning Star event and the Evening Star event are together caused by the planet Venus. E.g. The warming and the expansion of gas are together caused by the nature of gas. Please see Ted Honderich for a full discussion of causal chains, causal connections, and nomic connections.

In my opinion what can be called 'the observer' (per se) precedes experience as 'signifier' before perseverance into value.

Experience would reside between the fundamental act of signification and perseverance. By this logic it would be correct to state that only experience is real while persevered value (physical reality or 'the cosmos') is not. However, from a fundamental philosophical perspective experience follows the act of valuing (signification).

French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas - an icon of Western philosophy that is researched by dedicated scholars today - said the following:

"in renouncing intentionality as a guiding thread toward the eidos [formal structure] of the psyche … our analysis will follow sensibility in its pre-natural signification to the maternal, where, in proximity [to what is not itself], signification signifies before it gets bent into perseverance in being in the midst of a Nature. (OBBE: 68, emph. added) "
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/levinas/

"The creation of the world itself should get its meaning starting from goodness." (Levinas in film Absent God 1:06:22)

Signification 'on behalf of pure meaning' signifies before it 'gets bent into perseverance' (becomes value). The process of becoming (following signification) would be experience.

Would you disagree with this reasoning?

There is an untold number of subjective experiences.

Can it be said that there is a number at all, i.e. that it involves a totality?