On May 3, 10:24 pm, n...@webtv.net (The Averdein Building) wrote:
>
>
> >The notion of a 'random' or, alternatively,
> > 'uncaused' result that neverthess
> > shows statistical regularity is a
> > nonsensical one. There is no need to
> > ponder any QM or other reality, the
> > mathematics is sound.
>
> If you're not venturing "hidden variables" from a scientific (or entity)
> realist stance, then I don't have an issue with you about it (was
> waiting for that to be clarified further).
>
I'm not quite sure what you're meaning by an entity realist, but I've
been putting the simple point that a statistical manifestation as
solid as a half-life has an underlying cause. I think that that's a
pretty realistic and pragmatic position - claiming that it hasn't a
cause is so peculiar as to require some very special pleading.
>
> We can constructively devise underlying "explanations" without
> dogmatically attributing literal existence to them. But if this had
> instead within the context of realism, I'd have a distaste for the idea
> of an infinite parade of stratums of new entities to explain former
> ones. Unending boxes (causes) within boxes (causes) is akin to
> mysticism, IMO (more endless unknowns / mysteries remaining at any stage
> of postulation / investigation).
>
I can't disagree with you, in terms of taste, but, if you've a Russian
doll, then that's just the nature of the thing, it has more dollies
inside it. You might object to it, curse it, consider it taboo and so
forth, but that won't get rid of the inner dolls no matter how hard
you work at it - you need superglue for that, and even then you
haven't got rid of them, just made them inaccessible. Russian dolls,
incidentally, conform to the standards [only?] physical manifestation
of a regress, that is one that is not infinite.
>
> >If there is a statistical regularity, then
> > there is a cause for it - even if it might
> > be experimental error. There is no room
> > for an uncaused statistical regularity
> > anywhere apart from the realm of
> > magic.
>
> How could "uncaused" apply if there was a magic realm responsible
> (occult forces, occult personhoods, etc)? I take it that you're using
> traditional meanings for "magic" rather than my unconventional
> "Foundational, axiomatic, the buck stops here when it comes to
> explanations" concerning "miracle regularities". Which would not be
> augmented with any metempirical "realms" or "entities" of either
> supernatural or natural being.
>
Well, yes, I do certainly see your point, you can say that the
whistler on the ship 'caused' the storm, but this is only a very loose
usage of the term 'caused'. The method whereby the whistler and the
storm are linked is magic, which does not operate by any physical laws
(that's the point of it).
>
> >If it's magic that you're keen on, then I think
> > conversations with witches should be more your aim
> > rather than conversations with rational people.
>
> What a charming degree of judgemental and misguided arrogance you keep
> releasing. Your penchant for projecting misrepresentations into posts
> suggests that you're the one who could feel right at home in a group of
> witches, creationists, etc. But as I alluded earlier, this may not have
> been deliberate on your part and I'll accept the blame for the
> misunderstanding if such is the case.
>
Well, thank you, that's going to ensure that we all remain friends!