Ye shall not steal: hydromedusiod theory of property

[MacFall]

Reason is an ordered process which cannot exist in a fundamentally orderless universe

Randomness doesn't equate to disorder. Read the rest of my comments for examples.

Your examples didn't demonstrate that at all. Saying that the universe is random but not disorderly is to say that cause and effect exist while denying the existence of causal laws.

Also,

Induction never tells us what is certainly true, only what is probably true in relation to our prior knowledge.

Then you can only believe that the universe is "probably" random. You can't know it. You can't know anything at all. Which means I'm just as likely to be correct in my belief that the Universe is an internally deterministic system injected with human Free Will by a supernatural Being as you are that the Universe is a purely natural, purely random event. If everything (including human thought) is random, then all thought is equally valid, just as all thought would be equally invalid in a purely deterministic Universe.

ohai, John Maynard Keynes.

Do you have a point to make? How is some discredited economist relevant to what I said? Please be constructive.

If you are really not aware of how your beliefs are relevant to the epistemological foundation of Keynesian thought, then I leave it as an exercise to you to find out. Here's a clue: before he wrote the General Theory, he wrote a book detailing the same epistemology you hold. It's important because it implies the economics of the General Theory by denying that such things as "economic laws" exist.

[1714972059]

1714972059

[1714972059]

1714972059

[NghtRppr]

Your examples didn't demonstrate that at all.

They demonstrate that we can have patterns without necessary causation. Do you disagree? If so, why?

Then you can only believe that the universe is "probably" random.

Exactly right. We both have beliefs about the universe that can't be falsified. I believe it's random and you apparently believe that it's not. Either of our beliefs are completely consistent with every possible observation. Since we can't falsify each others claims, we have to appeal to something else since it's possible that either of us could be right. I appeal to Occam's Razor. We already know that the universe behaves a certain way and I claim that it "just does" without any hidden, unprovable necessary connections. If you think otherwise, you have the burden of believing in something akin to religious faith. Just like I can't prove God doesn't exist but still think there probably isn't a God. I also can't prove necessary connections don't exist but I still think they probably don't. My position is more empirical than yours, if you choose to deny the regularist position.

If you are really not aware of how your beliefs are relevant to the epistemological foundation of Keynesian thought, then I leave it as an exercise to you to find out. Here's a clue: before he wrote the General Theory, he wrote a book detailing the same epistemology you hold. It's important because it implies the economics of the General Theory by denying that such things as "economic laws" exist.

You clearly don't understand my beliefs. Under my view, economic laws are real and every bit as law-like as the laws of nature. I'm downgrading the laws of nature, not economic laws. I posted this link earlier. Please read it before you presume to tell me what my beliefs entail.

Here's what I believe:

A good example embodying the Regularists’ view can be found in the proposition, attributed to Sir Thomas Gresham (1519?-1579) but already known earlier, called – not surprisingly – “Gresham’s Law”:

    [Gresham's Law is] the theory holding that if two kinds of money in circulation have the same denominational value but different intrinsic values, the money with higher intrinsic value will be hoarded and eventually driven out of circulation by the money with lesser intrinsic value.

In effect what this “law” states is that ‘bad money drives out good’. For example, in countries where the governments begin issuing vast amounts of paper money, that money becomes next-to-worthless and people hoard ‘good’ money, e.g. gold and silver coins, that is, “good” money ceases to circulate.

Why, when paper money becomes virtually worthless, do people hoard gold? Because gold retains its economic value – it can be used in emergencies to purchase food, clothing, flight (if need be), medicine, etc., even when “bad” paper money will likely not be able to be so used. People do not hoard gold under such circumstances because Gresham’s “Law” forces them to do so. Gresham’s “Law” is purely descriptive (not prescriptive) and illustrates well the point Regularists insist upon: namely, that laws of economics are not causal agents – they do not force the world to be some particular way rather than another. (Notice, too, how this non-nomological “Law” works perfectly adequately in explaining persons’ behavior. Citing regularities can, and does, explain the way the world is. One does not need to posit an underlying, inaccessible, nomicity.)

The manner in which we regard Gresham’s “Law” ought, Regularists suggest, to be the way we regard all laws of nature. The laws of physics and chemistry are no different than the laws of economics. All laws of nature – of physics, of chemistry, of biology, of economics, of psychology, of sociology, and so forth – are nothing more, nor anything less, than (a certain subclass of) true propositions.

I couldn't ask for a more direct refutation of your argument.

[MacFall]

Your examples didn't demonstrate that at all.

They demonstrate that we can have patterns without necessary causation. Do you disagree? If so, why?

If a "pattern" is nothing more than a random series of recurrences of previous events, then it is completely meaningless. It proves nothing but that the same thing can happen twice, at random; it does not supply us with any basis for believing that the pattern will continue, neither "definitely" nor "probably". One can't say, "we can assume that X will probably occur because it has occurred many times in the past in similar conditions" without implying that those conditions cause X to occur, and what's more, that something more fundamental to the nature of reality causes those conditions to have that effect.

You say that randomness doesn't equate to equal distribution, but something cannot possibly be factually more likely to occur than anything else without something causing it to be so. Mass cannot be assumed to be likely to continue to attract mass unless there is something in Nature that makes it behave in that way. The fact that mass has always attracted mass in the past gives us absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that it is any more likely to do so in the future than not without admitting causality. If there is no causality, then anything that looks like probability is just an illusion. Denying causality reduces all theory to wild guessing.

...We both have beliefs about the universe that can't be falsified. I believe it's random and you apparently believe that it's not. Either of our beliefs are completely consistent with every possible observation. Since we can't falsify each others claims, we have to appeal to something else since it's possible that either of us could be right. I appeal to Occam's Razor. We already know that the universe behaves a certain way and I claim that it "just does" without any hidden, unprovable necessary connections.

You say that despite the fact that all observation suggests that things always act in a certain way, and implies causality. Denying that is not Occam's Razor; it's just an assertion without any empirical support. And besides, "it just does" still leaves open the question of "why?" Repeating "it just does" is circular reasoning. Saying "because Nature is governed by causal laws" at least provides an answer. It is no more falsifiable than your belief, but my belief at least appears to be supported by all the evidence that experience has to offer.

If you think otherwise, you have the burden of believing in something akin to religious faith.

It's not a burden at all. I believe in God because I see the existence of a supernatural Ultimate Cause as being far more likely than the innumerable coincidences that would have had to occur to bring something as complex as human consciousness into existence, considering each coincidence as a separate assumption. Of course it is religious faith; I am a Christian after all. However, I'm not trying to prove that God exists in this thread. I am only arguing for causality.

You clearly don't understand my beliefs. Under my view, economic laws are real and every bit as law-like as the laws of nature. I'm downgrading the laws of nature, not economic laws.

And in so doing, you relegate economic laws to "things which I believe will apply in the future", while at the same time denying that you have any identifiable reason for such belief. Which Keynes likewise did, in his work before the General Theory. In denying that economic laws are descriptive of things that are fundamentally true about human nature, he was able to posit that they could be "broken" without predictable consequences. E.g., we don't really know that increasing the quantity of money will result in higher prices just because it has in the past. To say otherwise is to posit a naive, causal view of the world. Therefore we shall empower the government to meddle in the economy without end. Not only do we reject the childish causal-realism of the Austrians, we also don't know whether something the government does that works this time will even work again in the future.

Which explains the numerous and blatant contradictions in the General Theory. Keynes really didn't believe that he was describing a fully consistent system in his economics.

[NghtRppr]

I believe in God because I see the existence of a supernatural Ultimate Cause as being far more likely than the innumerable coincidences that would have had to occur to bring something as complex as human consciousness into existence, considering each coincidence as a separate assumption.

That's all I need to read to realize that any further dialog with you would be a waste of my time. Good luck in life. I wish the best for you.

[MacFall]

I don't need luck. My life isn't governed by blind, stupid chance. Thanks for the well wishes, though. Also, I appreciate you leaving my rebuttals to your position unchallenged. (Note: the fact that I believe in God doesn't affect my arguments for a causal reality at all, because I did not argue for causality from a theistic position.)

[mewantsbitcoins]

MacFall, I think God created man just forgot to create himself

edit: is it time for the famous George Carlin's rant?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

[NghtRppr]

My life isn't governed by blind, stupid chance.

Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't.

[lumos]

assumption number 1 'because our animal nature is fully compatible with theft. '

[em3rgentOrdr]

assumption number 1 'because our animal nature is fully compatible with theft. '

Wow.  What a Fail assumption.

[lumos]

assumption number 1 'because our animal nature is fully compatible with theft. '

Wow.  What a Fail assumption.

is that sarcasm?
his assertion is that we have theft in our nature? that is an assumption, a wrong one. it is our nature to be altruists, theft is something outliers do, theft is something they are forced to do by economic circumstance.

[MacFall]

Theft is certainly within the scope of human nature, otherwise there would be no thieves. However, it is certainly not a dominant quality, as it does not occur within what may be called "normal conditions". Some external condition out of the ordinary may drive a man to abandon his moral code and steal food rather than starve, or some internal malady may give him a perverse thrill from the act of theft. But the vast majority of people do not steal, and would never even seriously consider it.

What may be said in terms of human nature is that it drives us away from theft by showing us through our reason that we will have more to consume if we live peacefully with our neighbors and trade to our mutual benefit. However, the abnormal mindset that impedes such reason does exist within human nature. The state, in particular, expends an incredible amount of time and energy in trying to obfuscate the long-term ill effects of parasitism, and has done so with great success. The political mindset induces some men, out of ignorance or malice, to act against what is ultimately in humanity's interests, but it does not induce them to act against human nature, because when man chooses the political means over the economic means, he is still acting as a rational human being, albeit a sick or foolish one.

[em3rgentOrdr]

assumption number 1 'because our animal nature is fully compatible with theft. '

Wow.  What a Fail assumption.

is that sarcasm?
his assertion is that we have theft in our nature? that is an assumption, a wrong one. it is our nature to be altruists, theft is something outliers do, theft is something they are forced to do by economic circumstance.

In that case, it is a non-sequentior.