John Page

Then how can you believe anything since we live in a relativistic environment.
Random is equivalent to uncaused so it doesn't really help. If something were, for sake of argument, truly random then it would have any effect anyway.

Cheers, John

Nowhere357

John, you asked:
This is a range. Given 99.999...% predictability, and still the possibility of free will exists.

This situation does not equate to requiring 100% certaintude to accept the existence of something as a fact. Nonetheless, that was a well laid trap.

John, I am more sure of my own existence, then I am of the existence of the rest of reality. After all, I am directly aware of my own existence, and only indirectly aware of everything else.

Do you claim randomness to be non-deterministic? I think that position would be incorrect, and require support.

Incorrect. First, quantum randomness is truly random, to the best of my knowledge. Second, the effect is a range of outcomes.

Free will can be seen as operating within that range.

Free will is alive and well!

John Page

Nowhere:

Quantum and mathematical randomness are statistically predictable and therefore not "truly" random.

This is different than the English sense of the word where random is something arbitrary or by chance.

Conclusion: "Truly" random is a concept that is self-defeating, we just don;t fully understand the causes at this point. Any POV that supposes something is truly random because we don't know the cause is jumping the gun.

Cheers, John

Nowhere357

A single quantum event is not predictable.

Any POV that supposes something is not truly random because we don't know the cause is jumping the gun.

Free will is alive and well!

Peace

John Page

Ho Niwhere!

Therefore? (and I think you mean the timing of a single quantum event.
OK, come up with an example of something that is truly random.

(If you're thinking of responding with a single quantum event I will then ask what makes that quantum event occur and where you get your observations from).

Cheers, John

Nowhere357

Well, yeah, quantum events are the only truly random thing I'm aware of.

The cause is unknown. Statistical analysis is a description, and not an explanation.

I'm not sure what you mean by "where I get my observation from". The only observations I can think of come from particle accelerators.

My position is that our subjective awareness of will, and the objective-deterministic view, are not really in conflict. Something emerges from a sufficiently advanced life form which has the qualities of passive awareness and active will.

What exactly is your position?

BTW thanks much for the SAoM link. I think I'll enjoy it.

Keith Russell

john, I have never heard 'random' described as 'uncaused'.

If I draw a card from a deck at random, there certainly is a cause; a reason why that card was the one drawn, even if I did not consciously choose that particular card.

Saying that 'random' and 'uncaused' are synonyms, is not correct, at least not as I understand and use those two words.

Keith.

John Page

Things are made of stuff, philosophy is the matter of finding out a reasonably accurate way of thinking about this stuff and understanding what it is.

We measure stuff by comparing it with other stuff. Random is always random w.r.t. something. If you can't discern the weather patterns they appear random, plot and correlate the relevant data to discover cause.

Individual quantum events seem unpredictable (like the weather used to). Taken in a large enough quantity they appear probablistic (like the weather when you know it snows 3 days on a typical February in a particular location).

I want to make a clear distinction between the terms pseudo-random and random. Pseudo-random (as in random number generator) is something that is unpredictable to the observer. Randomness is causeless, there is no truly random number because you could never find out what it is.

Quantum behavior is, IMO, pseudo-random rather than random - you can plot quantum behavior.

I know this isn't very exact, and I've run out of time for now, but it is my position.

Cheers, John

John Page

Yes, I agree they are not necessarily synonymous.

People use random in a number of different senses and hopefully my prior post has made my underlying meaning clearer.

Cheers, john

Nowhere357

I suggest the possibility that the cause for some quantum behavior may be mental activity.

Until someone manages to close this window, I claim it for the purpose of allowing free will to co-exist with determinism.

Free will is alive and well.