Does randomness mean free will?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Free will implies unpredictability and randomness is supposed to imply unpredictability too.

PhilX

[FlashDangerpants]

If two different phenomena both achieve the same outcome, that doesn't imply they are identical. It may simply mean there are two, or more, unrelated ways to get unpredictability.

[Obvious Leo]

Free will implies unpredictability and randomness is supposed to imply unpredictability too.

PhilX

Unpredictability and randomness are not synonymous terms. Which one are you referring to?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Free will implies unpredictability and randomness is supposed to imply unpredictability too.

PhilX

Unpredictability and randomness are not synonymous terms. Which one are you referring to?

In terms of what?

Randomness does imply unpredictability as this definition says:

"Randomness is the lack of pattern or predictability in events. A random sequence of events, symbols or steps has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination."

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

This is a philosophy forum, Phil, and thus I shouldn't need to explain the difference to you. Randomness does not exist in nature because a random event is an event without a cause. Unpredictability, on the other hand, is ubiquitous in nature because all natural events are multi-causal and deducing all of the causes for a given event is a logical impossibility due to the infinite causal regress.

[Philosophy Explorer]

This is a philosophy forum, Phil, and thus I shouldn't need to explain the difference to you. Randomness does not exist in nature because a random event is an event without a cause. Unpredictability, on the other hand, is ubiquitous in nature because all natural events are multi-causal and deducing all of the causes for a given event is a logical impossibility due to the infinite causal regress.

I disagree that randomness doesn't exist in nature. E.g. we have QM which is random to a certain extent as we can't determine exactly the position and momentum of an
object simultaneously. If you assume the universe is infinite in time, then you have infinite causal regress. But if you have the Big Bang which is mainstream physics, then there is no infinite causal regress.

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

This is a philosophy forum, Phil, and thus I shouldn't need to explain the difference to you. Randomness does not exist in nature because a random event is an event without a cause. Unpredictability, on the other hand, is ubiquitous in nature because all natural events are multi-causal and deducing all of the causes for a given event is a logical impossibility due to the infinite causal regress.

I disagree that randomness doesn't exist in nature. E.g. we have QM which is random to a certain extent as we can't determine exactly the position and momentum of an
object simultaneously. If you assume the universe is infinite in time, then you have infinite causal regress. But if you have the Big Bang which is mainstream physics, then there is no infinite causal regress.

PhilX

Every word of this post is bullshit. "Random to a certain extent" is an empty phrase without a meaning. Events are either caused or they aren't and an uncaused event is a metaphysical absurdity. The position and momentum of a particle cannot both be determined simultaneously for the simple reason that it can't have both simultaneously. What the fuck do you think the word "momentum" means? You can't specify the location and momentum of a jumbo jet at the same time either, or a galaxy for that matter. That the big bang is mainstream physics is beyond dispute but to suggest that the big bang was the beginning of the universe is an unwarranted leap of faith which no physicist would be prepared to make.

[Philosophy Explorer]

This is a philosophy forum, Phil, and thus I shouldn't need to explain the difference to you. Randomness does not exist in nature because a random event is an event without a cause. Unpredictability, on the other hand, is ubiquitous in nature because all natural events are multi-causal and deducing all of the causes for a given event is a logical impossibility due to the infinite causal regress.

I disagree that randomness doesn't exist in nature. E.g. we have QM which is random to a certain extent as we can't determine exactly the position and momentum of an
object simultaneously. If you assume the universe is infinite in time, then you have infinite causal regress. But if you have the Big Bang which is mainstream physics, then there is no infinite causal regress.

PhilX

Every word of this post is bullshit. "Random to a certain extent" is an empty phrase without a meaning. Events are either caused or they aren't and an uncaused event is a metaphysical absurdity. The position and momentum of a particle cannot both be determined simultaneously for the simple reason that it can't have both simultaneously. What the fuck do you think the word "momentum" means? You can't specify the location and momentum of a jumbo jet at the same time either, or a galaxy for that matter. That the big bang is mainstream physics is beyond dispute but to suggest that the big bang was the beginning of the universe is an unwarranted leap of faith which no physicist would be prepared to make.

To say that the universe has always been around is bullshit to me Leo. How can you determine the universe is infinite in time when we are finite creatures? We know through a model the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. To say the universe has always been around is a leap of faith because what clock have you used to measure its age? Random to a certain extent is meaningful based on quantum mechanics whose predictions are extremely accurate so you're off here Leo. You can take your extreme positions if that makes you comfortable - I'll stick with mainstream physics as that makes sense to me.

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

To say that the universe has always been around is bullshit to me Leo.

OK. I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. As long as you understand that by assuming that the universe had a beginning you are making a statement of faith and not a statement of reason. There are probably billions of people in the world who share your belief so you're certainly not alone in holding it.

How can you determine the universe is infinite in time when we are finite creatures?

The law of parsimony. A universe which is not eternal is insufficient to its own existence and thus requires an unverifiable assumption that a causal agent exists external to it. Clearly you are willing to believe this but this is not a philosophical position.

I'll stick with mainstream physics as that makes sense to me.

"Anybody who claims to understand quantum mechanics is obviously somebody who doesn't understand it"....Richard Feynman