Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

Sorry, but you can't prove a negative.

Thanks for proving my point.
There is no such thing as pure randomness, and you cannot prove there is because it does not exist.
Please show your working

Huh? Did you post before completing a sentence there?

But we've already covered what you seem to be claiming --- you are making the claim, "There is no such thing as true randomness," and hence the burden of proof is on you. Which you could only satisfy by demonstrating a cause for every entity and event, which would require omniscience. Since you're not omniscient and hence cannot so demonstrate, the possibility of "truly random" (uncaused) events remains open.

nah
I'm fine.
Keep your fantasy if it helps, but spontaneous generation went out with Louis Pasteur, Ehlich and Koch.
You are living in the past clinging on to a theory that does no work.

[GE Morton]

Keep your fantasy if it helps, but spontaneous generation went out with Louis Pasteur, Ehlich and Koch.

Quite true. But we're not talking about spontaneous generation of biological organisms, as they were. That most phenomena we experience has known causes does not confirm your thesis that uncaused events are impossible.

[d3r31nz1g3]

A real world example would be the way that CloudFlare - one of the biggest internet networking services - is introducing randomness to its encryption system using an array of Lava Lamps.

All self-contained computer processes that which generate variable generations or select variable choices do so by selecting a variable at point in time. As in, in a random number generator, the specific time the button is clicked and the background computer processes that are occurring at that moment cause an apparently variable action to occur. But it's all just deriving changing values at point in time from a massive calculation.

The lava lamp is simply extending that principle to the physical world.

All variable computer actions are derived from irrational numbers and not random. Irrational numbers are not random but they highly, highly appear to be so. This is what explains the appearance of apparently random phenomena.

Irrational numbers. Not random.

[Sculptor1]

Keep your fantasy if it helps, but spontaneous generation went out with Louis Pasteur, Ehlich and Koch.

Quite true. But we're not talking about spontaneous generation of biological organisms, as they were. That most phenomena we experience has known causes does not confirm your thesis that uncaused events are impossible.

Uncaused events are a bit like Santa.
I would prefer to leave such notions to the gullible.

[Pattern-chaser]

If something is truly RANDOM, how could you ever explain how the random result is produced amongst the infinite potentials that could've been instead?

Well, of course I can't/couldn't. That, as you say, is what "random" means. But, just because I can't explain it, or how it could come about, doesn't mean there is no true randomness in the universe, it just means this is one of the many things in the universe that we humans can't understand. This is perfectly normal, I think?

[Pattern-chaser]

Sorry, but you can't prove a negative.

There is no such thing as pure randomness, and you cannot prove there is because it does not exist.

...you are making the claim, "There is no such thing as true randomness," and hence the burden of proof is on you.

No. There is no "burden of proof". However, Sculptor1 has offered an idea for consideration here, and it would be useful if he is able to clarify or expand on what he has said. To state there is "no such thing" is a typically absolute assertion, and (also typically) it is offered without justification. So Sculptor1's contribution to this discussion is only that someone is of the opinion that true randomness does not exist. Perhaps he has more to offer, though? We'll see...

[d3r31nz1g3]

If something is truly RANDOM, how could you ever explain how the random result is produced amongst the infinite potentials that could've been instead?

Well, of course I can't/couldn't. That, as you say, is what "random" means. But, just because I can't explain it, or how it could come about, doesn't mean there is no true randomness in the universe, it just means this is one of the many things in the universe that we humans can't understand. This is perfectly normal, I think?

But it's not a matter of understanding.

If random, then the universe "generates things without explanation as to how" at all what-so-ever. It would have to be pure, irrational, inexplicable magic.

[3017Metaphysician]

If something is truly RANDOM, how could you ever explain how the random result is produced amongst the infinite potentials that could've been instead?

Well, of course I can't/couldn't. That, as you say, is what "random" means. But, just because I can't explain it, or how it could come about, doesn't mean there is no true randomness in the universe, it just means this is one of the many things in the universe that we humans can't understand. This is perfectly normal, I think?

But it's not a matter of understanding.

If random, then the universe "generates things without explanation as to how" at all what-so-ever. It would have to be pure, irrational, inexplicable magic.

No, that would be more like complete chaos, in principle anyway. Otherwise, you'd still have problems with causation since randomness itself has its own language of causation. You know, the information narrative.

[d3r31nz1g3]

If something is truly RANDOM, how could you ever explain how the random result is produced amongst the infinite potentials that could've been instead?

Well, of course I can't/couldn't. That, as you say, is what "random" means. But, just because I can't explain it, or how it could come about, doesn't mean there is no true randomness in the universe, it just means this is one of the many things in the universe that we humans can't understand. This is perfectly normal, I think?

But it's not a matter of understanding.

If random, then the universe "generates things without explanation as to how" at all what-so-ever. It would have to be pure, irrational, inexplicable magic.

No, that would be more like complete chaos, in principle anyway. Otherwise, you'd still have problems with causation since randomness itself has its own language of causation. You know, the information narrative.

Language of causation? Would have to just be language.

If random, no explanation as to how. It's random. It's self-evident.



Random does not exist by laws of time, mathematics, and robotics.

[d3r31nz1g3]

Random does not exist. Triangle.
Triangles are innate and pre-encoded.

Random and triangle are mutually exclusive.

[GE Morton]

...you are making the claim, "There is no such thing as true randomness," and hence the burden of proof is on you.

No. There is no "burden of proof".

Huh? The proponent of a thesis has no burden of proof?

[GE Morton]

If random, then the universe "generates things without explanation as to how" at all what-so-ever. It would have to be pure, irrational, inexplicable magic.

Yep. Unfortunately, that can't be ruled out.

[GE Morton]

No, that would be more like complete chaos, in principle anyway. Otherwise, you'd still have problems with causation since randomness itself has its own language of causation. You know, the information narrative.

What "language of causation" is that? This "information narrative" of yours is a spurious conceptual construct with no more substance or explanatory utility than "godditit."

[Sy Borg]

To what extent do people here see this question as connected with the question of determinism?

[value]

To what extent do people here see this question as connected with the question of determinism?

The source in the OP provides information:

(2020) When Science and Philosophy meet Randomness, Determinism, and Chaos
Randomness cannot exist in a world governed by determinism under the laws of physics. Determinism can imitate randomness. Statistical physics, which at the same time explains the possibility of predictions and the residual gap between predictions and observations. Randomness can imitate determinism.
https://towardsdatascience.com/when-sci ... db825c3114

The article also mentions the following:

"pure randomness, for which the proof is still being debated."