# Anything Goes, Ontology of Structural Randomness **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 7, 2002, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-goes-ontology-of-structural-randomness/107778 "2002-05-07T20:41:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ethic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/977dab/32.png) [@ethic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ethic)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2002, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-goes-ontology-of-structural-randomness/107778/1 "2002-05-07T20:41:41Z")
My thought experiment that I would like you to engage in goes as follows: **The Theory of Anything Goes** Imagine a universe where anything is possible. What would happen? First of all, what are we saying when we say that anything goes? It means that to begin with there’s a 50/50 potential for something to happen. Therefore, there’s a 50/50 chance that something arises that is _more persistent_, meaning the likelihood of it ceasing to be is less than 0.5 (on a scale of 0 to 1 where 1 is absolute likelihood). Nonetheless, the potential for existence can never be 1 because that would defy our basic premise that anything goes! So what’s to prevent this universe from becoming an immobile totally stable lump of iron? Well, everything is possible, including randomly degenerative processes. Presumably the most likely of all states in a universe where anything is possible, is a state somewhere between total chaos and absolute stability. Therefore, a universe seemingly chaotic yet beautifully structured in its immense complexity. A universe much like ours. For example, the likelihood of unidirectional time is high since, eventually, iterations will tend more strongly towards one direction or the other. Occasionally, perhaps, time becomes unstable and flutters back and forth. But that would be rare occurrence indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2002, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-goes-ontology-of-structural-randomness/107778/2 "2002-05-07T20:50:23Z")
I don’t get it. Why imagine what is already obvious? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2002, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-goes-ontology-of-structural-randomness/107778/3 "2002-05-07T21:06:18Z")
[wipes tear from eye] Eris is smiling so big right now I can hardly estimate her joy. 😃 But, really, can we really say that everything is equally likely if something is more likely? > [@](#): > > For example, the likelihood of unidirectional time is high since, eventually, iterations will tend more strongly towards one direction or the other. No, they’ll tend to cancel each other out. This is what equally likely means, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![ethic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/977dab/32.png) [@ethic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ethic)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2002, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-goes-ontology-of-structural-randomness/107778/4 "2002-05-07T21:08:18Z")
Since (as you say) it is obvious, it should also be obvious that no intent is required to explain how the Universe came into being. No demiurge, no deity, no Creator per say except Randomness 😉 ---
**Author:** ![ethic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/977dab/32.png) [@ethic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ethic)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2002, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-goes-ontology-of-structural-randomness/107778/5 "2002-05-07T21:11:40Z")
> [@](#): > > they’ll tend to cancel each other out But then nothing is possible? Doesn’t this contradict the very premise of our universe? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2002, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-goes-ontology-of-structural-randomness/107778/6 "2002-05-07T21:17:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ethnicallynot \* > \*\*Since (as you say) it is obvious, it should also be obvious that no intent is required to explain how the Universe came into being. No demiurge, no deity, no Creator per say except Randomness 😉 \*\* A mysterious statement on so many levels. Intent? At any rate, your observation says nothing at all about any “creation” of the universe. The probabilities you spoke of, I hope, are not applicable in your mind to a supernatural metaphysic, are they? How the universe came into being **as a probabilistic field** must still be answered. ---
**Author:** ![ethic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/977dab/32.png) [@ethic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ethic)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2002, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-goes-ontology-of-structural-randomness/107778/7 "2002-05-07T21:39:14Z")
> [@](#): > > **Libertarian** > How the universe came into being as a probabilistic field must still be answered Only to the same extent that it must be answered how God came into being. The probabilistic field is God. A very Leibnitzian god perhaps, but God nonetheless. Either everything remains forever NULL or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, the Universe bootstraps itself into existence. ---
**Author:** ![BlackKnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb8c5e/32.png) [@BlackKnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlackKnight)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2002, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-goes-ontology-of-structural-randomness/107778/8 "2002-05-07T21:42:23Z")
What’s a probabilistic field? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2002, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-goes-ontology-of-structural-randomness/107778/9 "2002-05-07T21:57:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Only to the same extent that it must be answered how God came into being. The probabilistic field is God. A very Leibnitzian god perhaps, but God nonetheless. Either everything remains forever NULL or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, the Universe bootstraps itself into existence. Random assertions. * * * > [@](#): > > What’s a probabilistic field? The universe. It is a probabilistic field of electromagnetic waves suspended in gravity. ---
**Author:** ![ethic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/977dab/32.png) [@ethic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ethic)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2002, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-goes-ontology-of-structural-randomness/107778/10 "2002-05-07T22:34:36Z")
> [@](#): > > **Libertarian** > Random assertions. 🙂 In the sence that all things are ultimately random? Remember that increasingly structured constructs evolve within our Anything Goes universe. To call these phenomenological structures random assertions would be inaccurate since their complexity can be reduced. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2002, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-goes-ontology-of-structural-randomness/107778/11 "2002-05-07T23:27:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ethnicallynot \* > \*\* > > But then nothing is possible? Doesn’t this contradict the very premise of our universe? 😕 \*\* No. Anything is possible, including nothing. ---
**Author:** ![ethic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/977dab/32.png) [@ethic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ethic)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2002, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-goes-ontology-of-structural-randomness/107778/12 "2002-05-07T23:38:08Z")
> [@](#): > > No. Anything is possible, including nothing. And so, ultimately everything ceases to be. Or “all things equal each other out” And then start all over again, deviating into space, consciousness, unidirectional time. Which then collapses. But, all things being possible, everything start all over again. And again. And again… ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2002, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-goes-ontology-of-structural-randomness/107778/13 "2002-05-08T01:07:05Z")
Of course, there is the **equal probability** that it stays nothing. Everything is possible, right? ---
**Author:** ![ethic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/977dab/32.png) [@ethic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ethic)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2002, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-goes-ontology-of-structural-randomness/107778/14 "2002-05-08T01:52:58Z")
> [@](#): > > there is the equal probability that it stays nothing For the same reason something with a potential of 1 would contradict the essence of our Anything Goes universe, so would something with an absolute potential of 0. So even the potential of all potentials being 0 must, in fact, be a potential. But, that is indeed a contradiction. Because if all potentials are 0, the potential of all things being 0 is indeed 0! Conclusion: it never takes place and the Universe again bootstraps itself into existence. ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2002, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-goes-ontology-of-structural-randomness/107778/15 "2002-05-08T01:56:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > Random assertions. Kind of like this one? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > A curvature in space need not be a dramatic and enormous well of helplessly swirling matter spiraling toward an event horizon. It can be a simple zero-dimensional string that spans any arbitrary distance. Peace. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2002, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-goes-ontology-of-structural-randomness/107778/16 "2002-05-08T02:20:25Z")
I’m afraid I just don’t get it. ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2002, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-goes-ontology-of-structural-randomness/107778/17 "2002-05-08T02:28:46Z")
What, my reply? I was just suggesting that the pot sometimes calls the kettle black. No offense to **Lib** intended, just an observation. The quote was from this thread: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=109714&pagenumber=2](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=109714&pagenumber=2) ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2002, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-goes-ontology-of-structural-randomness/107778/18 "2002-05-08T02:47:08Z")
No, this thread. ---
**Author:** ![cainxinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7bcc69/32.png) [@cainxinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cainxinth)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2002, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-goes-ontology-of-structural-randomness/107778/19 "2002-05-08T03:51:58Z")
**ethnicallynot** , I don’t understand it either. My background goes about as far as Stephen Hawking and Brian Greene, and some modern phillosophy, but i’m afraid I couldn’t follow your explanation or discern your logic. Could you explain your argument in terms I might understand? ---
**Author:** ![Sparc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Sparc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sparc)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2002, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-goes-ontology-of-structural-randomness/107778/20 "2002-05-08T05:00:51Z")
Having had this debate with Mr. ethnicallynot on a few occasions previous. I might intercede with some explanation. What he is trying to assert is that the universe is an undeniable consequence of itself. I happen to agree with **erislover** in as much as that I do not understand this. But given that ethnicallynot is my sibling and that a few hours of family holiday dinners have been spent on this issue, I would more than appreciate any other views that might make me understand my obviously talented younger brothers assertions…even better: debunk him. Good luck Sparc [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anything-goes-ontology-of-structural-randomness/107778.md?page=2)