drafterman

At this stage, it honestly has more to do with your behavior looking rather similar to the last 2 games, where you refused to claim under pressure. It has less to do with your activity, though that did seem low for you as well. Other people may also be down in terms of participation, but you were unusually quiet.

I always thought your philosophy was that town should lynch since its there primary tool for getting scum. Your vote is essentially a VTNL if your just gonna leave it hanging and do nothing to pursuade others with it.

Non-causal events "could be" at the root of all things.

That is the defining feature of acausality AND causality.=> Both acasual and causal events "just happen"

The laws of physics just happen, so does quantum mechanics, this particular definition is incorrect.

The difference between the two is this:

• Any "causal" event is based on conditions
  
• Any causal event is defined as being controlled by causality
  
• Causality is to be dependent on conditions - that the event will happen if and only if certain criteria are met
  
• Any causal event requires certain conditions
  
• Any "acausal" event is not
  
• Any acausal event is defined as being based on acausality
  
• Acausality: not involving causation or arising from a cause - thus not being limited by causality
  
• Any acausal event will happen regardless of any conditions
  

This means that acausal events will happen immediately but without a cause, and will ignore any condition making the even impossible.

If an event can be prevented or caused, it is not acausal.

Thus since stable nuclei prevent the event "radioactive decay" from happening, it is a causal, not acausal, event.

And NO, when talking about these things, time is nonexistent:

• Events happen everywhere they are allowed to happen, all times, everywhere, with no exceptions
  
• Acausal events can happen everywhere since they cannot be prevented by causality
  
• Since events happen everywhere every time possible, acausal events would happen at the same time in the entire fabric of space-time
  

"God is playing dice with the universe as a funny prank. He is smart enough to do it only inside atoms, where he could never be caught, or - so he though. "

drafterman

Again, this is not analogous to radioactive decay. We aren't talking about a complex system that is too difficult for us to model. Whatever example you want to use, be it the behavior of some animal or other living organism, or weather systems, or what have you, that is not what I'm talking about. Everything you've mentioned has an underlying physical process whose unpredictability is a result of its complexity and sensitivity to initial conditions. This is not the case for things like radioactive decay and quantum fluctuations.

It totally is.

We have modelled "matter" on so many levels: gravity, chemistry, quantum mechanics and many fields connected to them

You claim that radioactive decay is acausal, despite it happening seemingly predictable on a grand scale.

We can assume that there is a causal relationship between "being a thing with the potential for decaying" and the actual decaying.

Also, here is an explanation of what allows decaying to happen:

Radioactive decay is the spontaneous breakdown of an atomic nucleus resulting in the release of energy and matter from the nucleus. Remember that a radioisotope has unstable nuclei that does not have enough binding energy to hold the nucleus together.

There are at least a few certain "causes", that makes decaying a possibility.

I want to show two possible logical conclusions:

A - We have created a lot of models about the nature of atoms, and all of them except your two examples show a clear causality. If we mix water and salt, there is causality, you cannot disagree on this one. Even though there is causality, we cannot predict which molecules will stick to each ion, it just "happens". So basically there is no causality in this casual relationship of chemistry. This time you cannot rebuke it by claiming that it is just complexity because we are also on the same scale.

B - What if you are correct. We know that everything that is not happening right now is being prevented by a logical law, there is a law that claims that pink flying elephants cannot exist without a quite special cause (maybe even God is necessary for this project).

Even radioactive decay has some necessary cause in order to happen, explained earlier. But it could be a possibility that some causes are acausal. Let me explain: 

1. Radioactive decay cannot happen without a cause,  one of which is having unstable nuklei
   

1. An unstable nuklei does not immediately decay
   
2. There are some possibilities
   
1. There is a cause which is itself "acasual or random"
   
1. Maybe the cause is a mysterious "true randomness", maybe quantum mechanics
   
2. Maybe the cause is seemingly random because of the complexity it is dependent on, for example, quantum mechanics
   
2. There are many causes that must be true at the same time
   
1. Once a new cause becomes present, another one is removed and so fort, it seems acasual because of complexity
   
2. The causes are different for every specific atom, and thus unpredictable because of uncertainty
   

Of these two options, I like number 2 the most

We can conclude:

• Causality exists for sure
  
• Acausality can have different explanations:
  
• Complexity
  
• Uncertainty
  
• Theoretical randomness,  ( aka: "a wizard did it!" )
  

There is no reason to automatically assume that theoretical, illogical randomness exists.

Either way, acausality remains nonexistent:

Acausality: "the rejection of the law of cause and effect"

=> "the event will happen without a cause"

=> "the event will happen now as nothing prevents it from happening"

=> It doesn't happen now, so there must be a cause for such a delay

You cannot predict what number your dice will land on, but still, we understand that the laws of physics cause the randomness, not acausuality

Radioactive decay is predictable.

Does this include every conceivable event?

I do not understand why you insert the term "probability" in order to make your claim impervious to critique.

Probability requires either:

• A dataset with previous events with which one can predict future events
  
• A system of logic and or math that could cause the event under certain probabilistic circumstances.
  

If there is no cause for an event, there can be no probabilistic model. Or do you mean that "probability" in this case refers to God rolling dice, waiting to get all one million dice to show the number six, and then he will release the purple flying elephants?

Are you suggesting that determinism is provably false?

A purely hypothetical "acausal" event would not necessarily "break logic".

Why?

Why is there no flying pink elephants in space? Because there is no cause.

In other words, the event "flying pink elephants" is only held back because of causality.

Tell me, do you believe that an event can happen out of nowhere, without any cause?

Sorry, I mean no disrespect, but to me, that sounds ridiculous.

And we have never found such a claim to be true, while we constantly prove that what we thought were random or uncaused, in reality, has a logical explanation.

Tell me why you think that only certain "acusual" event can possibly happen, like quantum mechanics but not pink flying elephants

By logical, I mean that a cause A has a clear and only effect B so that the effect is completely dependant on the cause. A non-logical cause and effect process can not exist as the definition of non-logic would be that an effect B happen independently of a cause A

Logical: The idea that every cause A has an effect B

That no cause stands without effect and vice versa.

The only illogical event would be one that did not have a cause.

 So the thing all people from all religions and world views should agree on is the idea that everything is logical, nothing happens without a cause.

First of all,

Saying that something "can" be "true" simply because it hasn't been "ruled out" is THE CLASSIC DEFINITION OF AN APPEAL TO IGNORANCE.

For example, "You can't proove that bigfoottedlochnessspacealieens "don't exist" so we should act "as if" they're really really realzies."

Computers can calculate random numbers and the logical laws of physics create free will, not as an illusion but a description of humans.

drafterman & co seem to use an argument from ignorance to prove that illogical concepts could in fact exist.

Also, I really disagree with statements like these:

And it isn't evident that causality is a thing that exists rather than a perception of the human mind.

If we accept human logic as a necessary tool for debating,

I could easily prove how strange and stupid real illogical concepts would really be. :

1. Illogical events or things require no cause

2. Thus the lack of a cause would not stop an illogical event from happening

3. Every illogical thing possible would exist and happen at the same time constantly. The only reason why there are no flying pink elephants is that logic requires a cause

When talking about logic I do not mean human reasoning, which is limited, but causality, which theoretically would only make sense if universal.

I hope you realize that "unpredictability" does not automatically prove something is "acausal".

Illogical things exist. Humans are illogical. Humans exist.

What do you mean, do you reject the scientific fields of chemistry, biology and psychology. Humans literally exist dependant on the purely logical laws of physics. A computer operates under the exact same laws of physics, and it is purely logical. Are you claiming as a fact that an illogical soul exists that actually moves atoms around in our head in order to make our actions illogical? Such a thing could only exist in a religious doctrine, as science could never prove such a thing.

This is not evident.

Can you please defend this view, that we cannot be certain that processes are logical?

Has gravity ever been negative? Has quantum mechanics ever created a flying purple elephant? Science is built upon this thing you call "not evident": Any process in existence is a logical one. Theism does not claim illogicallity exist, neither does atheism.

As I stated above, without causality everything would exist at the same time, everywhere.

There would be no rule of logic that made sure explosions did not happen inside our heads. Do you talk about the ultimate reality, explain how God or the alternative could be non-casual.

I agree that it is a Faith of mine that logic must exist.

I see why you disagree with my claim that anything logical must exist based on the fact that humans can never create a logical system incorporating all knowledge

However, this version of my argument is the appropriate one:

1. Anything that exists can be described by one or more truth claims

2. Any process in existence is a logical one

3. Anything that is untrue or illogical cannot exist

No illogical process has ever been recorded or proven, and claiming that illogical processes exist outside of our universe is like claiming "A wizard did it"

By logical, I mean that a cause A has a clear and only effect B so that the effect is completely dependant on the cause. A non-logical cause and effect process can not exist as the definition of non-logic would be that an effect B happen independently of a cause A

Why logic must exist

1. A logical argument against logic is contradictory
   

1. An illogical argument against logic would be subjective
   

1. This is a forum, logic must be present
   

Logic: A function which uses known information to create new information

1. Nothing can exist that can not be described by specific truth-claims
   
2. No process can exist that is not logical in nature, being either a single logical statement or a structure of multiple logical statements
   
3. Conclusion: Nothing can exist that cannot be described using truth and logic