Probability has nothing to do with randomness

[bobmax]

Although it is said that a certain event happened by chance, in reality this is just a saying.
That is, let's say by chance, meaning that its fulfillment would not have been univocally determined.
Not that that event really happened by accident!

Because a random event is not simply indeterminable, it is in fact an event that has no cause.
The truly random event is the denial of necessity.

Everything that happens or happens by necessity, or not.
But regardless of necessity, then this event is the manifestation of Chaos!

Which cannot be harnessed in any logic, therefore not even manageable with probability.
Because probability still deals with necessary events.
Maybe constitutively indeterminable, but still they are in the realm of necessity.

The hypothetical truly random event is not even thinkable, because thought is thought of the necessary.

It is at the limit that can never be completely excluded.

Because it is the negation of necessity, and every negation finds its raison d'etre in what it negates.

And also because if we exclude it in the present, as impossible, we find it at the origin of everything, are we not here by chance?

[Skepdick]

Although it is said that a certain event happened by chance, in reality this is just a saying.
That is, let's say by chance, meaning that its fulfillment would not have been univocally determined.
Not that that event really happened by accident!

Because a random event is not simply indeterminable, it is in fact an event that has no cause.
The truly random event is the denial of necessity.

Everything that happens or happens by necessity, or not.
But regardless of necessity, then this event is the manifestation of Chaos!

Which cannot be harnessed in any logic, therefore not even manageable with probability.
Because probability still deals with necessary events.
Maybe constitutively indeterminable, but still they are in the realm of necessity.

The hypothetical truly random event is not even thinkable, because thought is thought of the necessary.

It is at the limit that can never be completely excluded.

Because it is the negation of necessity, and every negation finds its raison d'etre in what it negates.

And also because if we exclude it in the present, as impossible, we find it at the origin of everything, are we not here by chance?

You are over-thinking this. Abandon ontology, embrace epistemology/instrumentalism and just carry on with life.

Randomness. Chaos. Probability. Necessity - they are just tools. Software applications for your brain.

Use them. Benefit from them and close them. There's nothing to any theory/software application beyond its axioms.

[puto]

Having, written a response of nonsense. Coming, to the conclusion that the terms needed learning, from a dictionary or college and or both. I could not come down to a thesis with main ideas only that you need to learn the Latin terms

probare

from the noun

probus

pro and be. Absolute truths were of a logical conclusion. Chance of epistemic human ignorance that suggested no free will. Not being a skeptic only using persuasion as an appeal and being methodical to arrive at certainty of truths. Read some John Locke, circa 1632-1704 CE,

Essay Concerning Human understanding

problems of free will and moral responsibility. Fact, information, and opinion were terms used differently through time. A doctor of philosophy once told me, "A wise man says something because he has something to say. A fool because he has to say something, which one are you?" Attributed to Plato, circa 428-7-348-7 BCE. Read the book of Ecclesiastes for the definitions given by Qoheleth or Qohelet the philosopher. Thank you for making me think.

[alan1000]

I'm sorry, but I don't even understand why you would think that probability and randomness have any connection in the first place. Can you develop that point?

[bobmax]

I'm sorry, but I don't even understand why you would think that probability and randomness have any connection in the first place. Can you develop that point?

Thank you for your question, which prompts me to clarify this point.

Everything that happens can either be the effect of a cause or not.

If it has a cause it was necessary for it to happen.

If, on the other hand, it was not necessary to happen, because something else could have happened, then this possibility is due to chance.

There are therefore two laws that govern every event: necessity or randomness.

The necessary events may or may not be determinable.
That is, it is possible to predict them and backwards to establish their causes, or this is not possible.

But even if it is not possible, practically or even theoretically because the event is intrinsically indeterminate, we are still in the realm of necessity.
That is, the event is the effect of causes.

Conversely, the truly random event has no cause.
It too cannot be predicted and the causes cannot be traced. But for a different reason.
There are no causes!

If there are no causes, there is also no rule that this random event must respect.
Therefore it is not even possible to calculate the probability of its occurrence.

Because the probability is produced by the analysis of the causes.
Probability is always and only relative to necessity.

[alan1000]

"Everything that happens can either be the effect of a cause or not"

Can you give an example of what might be an "uncaused event"?

[bobmax]

"Everything that happens can either be the effect of a cause or not"

Can you give an example of what might be an "uncaused event"?

Your question is crucial.

Because once the events have been distinguished between caused and not caused, it is necessary to go to the concrete: are there really non-caused events, that is, random events?

Before trying to answer, in my opinion it is necessary to clarify how this idea of ​​randomness arises.
And what does the actual existence of a random event imply.

The idea of ​​randomness arises as a result of two unavoidable considerations:

1) Randomness is the denial of necessity. And like any negation it has its raison d'etre in what it denies.

2) The amazement of being there. I am here now, and my being there has an origin in the mists of time that can only be casual. I am here by chance!

However, this is just an idea.
What would the actual existence of a truly random event mean?
What would it entail to find myself in front of an event without cause?

Well, it would be the annihilation of the Cosmos.
Because a chance event would be the breaking out of Chaos.

So, no, I have no experience of a chance event.

However, I am becoming convinced that Chaos is boiling behind our Cosmos.
It can only be so.
It is necessary for the Good to be.

In fact, that Chaos is also Love, it depends only on you.
Only begotten son.

[Advocate]

[quote=bobmax post_id=584617 time=1658330936 user_id=22611]
Although it is said that a certain event happened by chance, in reality this is just a saying.
That is, let's say by chance, meaning that its fulfillment would not have been univocally determined.
Not that that event really happened by accident!

Because a random event is not simply indeterminable, it is in fact an event that has no cause.
The truly random event is the denial of necessity.

Everything that happens or happens by necessity, or not.
But regardless of necessity, then this event is the manifestation of Chaos!

Which cannot be harnessed in any logic, therefore not even manageable with probability.
Because probability still deals with necessary events.
Maybe constitutively indeterminable, but still they are in the realm of necessity.

The hypothetical truly random event is not even thinkable, because thought is thought of the necessary.

It is at the limit that can never be completely excluded.

Because it is the negation of necessity, and every negation finds its raison d'etre in what it negates.

And also because if we exclude it in the present, as impossible, we find it at the origin of everything, are we not here by chance?
[/quote]

Because the word "random" references the transcendent (ultimate lack of determinism) it is ineffable and the most the word can really mean is the extent to which is possible to know its casual factors. in other words, random = seems random.

[Immanuel Can]

...a random event is not simply indeterminable, it is in fact an event that has no cause....

That's what's called an "error of equivocation."

You went from "random" to "causeless," without realizing you'd done it. So your argument falls apart.

A roulette wheel may yield "random" results: it does not imply they were "causeless results." The final result was "caused" by things like force, circularity, momentum, gravitation, friction, and so on....but the outcome was random because there is no possibility of predicting the results consistently.

"Randomness" in fact, has a lot to do with "probability." You can't speak of the "probable" unless multiple results are possible. Otherwise, you can only speak of the "certain."

[bobmax]

...a random event is not simply indeterminable, it is in fact an event that has no cause....

That's what's called an "error of equivocation."

You went from "random" to "causeless," without realizing you'd done it. So your argument falls apart.

A roulette wheel may yield "random" results: it does not imply they were "causeless results." The final result was "caused" by things like force, circularity, momentum, gravitation, friction, and so on....but the outcome was random because there is no possibility of predicting the results consistently.

"Randomness" in fact, has a lot to do with "probability." You can't speak of the "probable" unless multiple results are possible. Otherwise, you can only speak of the "certain."

Randomness is the negation of the law of cause and effect.

Therefore the random event has no cause.

Your roulette example is completely wrong.
Because it has nothing to do with randomness.

[Immanuel Can]

Randomness is the negation of the law of cause and effect.

You're mistaken. They're two separate issues.

"Randomness" describes the level of predictability of the event.

"Cause and effect" describes the origin of the event.

Sorry...you equivocated your terms in your very first "syllogism." That's basic logic.

[bobmax]

Randomness is the negation of the law of cause and effect.

You're mistaken. They're two separate issues.

"Randomness" describes the level of predictability of the event.

"Cause and effect" describes the origin of the event.

Sorry...you equivocated your terms in your very first "syllogism." That's basic logic.

I guess you've never thought about the true meaning of randomness.

You confuse it with the indeterminable.

And if you appeal to logic, we are not there.

Randomness is the breaking out of Chaos into the Cosmos.

[Impenitent]

gamblers may disagree

-Imp

[Age]

Although it is said that a certain event happened by chance, in reality this is just a saying.
That is, let's say by chance, meaning that its fulfillment would not have been univocally determined.
Not that that event really happened by accident!

Because a random event is not simply indeterminable, it is in fact an event that has no cause.
The truly random event is the denial of necessity.

Everything that happens or happens by necessity, or not.
But regardless of necessity, then this event is the manifestation of Chaos!

Therefore, 'chaos' caused 'this event'.

Every event was caused.

Unless, of course, one can show an event that was NOT caused.

Which cannot be harnessed in any logic, therefore not even manageable with probability.
Because probability still deals with necessary events.
Maybe constitutively indeterminable, but still they are in the realm of necessity.

The hypothetical truly random event is not even thinkable, because thought is thought of the necessary.

It is at the limit that can never be completely excluded.

Because it is the negation of necessity, and every negation finds its raison d'etre in what it negates.

And also because if we exclude it in the present, as impossible, we find it at the origin of everything, are we not here by chance?

But there was NO 'origin of everything'.

Unless, of course, someone can show how 'everything from nothing' occurred.

[Age]

I'm sorry, but I don't even understand why you would think that probability and randomness have any connection in the first place. Can you develop that point?

Thank you for your question, which prompts me to clarify this point.

Everything that happens can either be the effect of a cause or not.

If it has a cause it was necessary for it to happen.

'Necessary' in relation to 'what', exactly?

If, on the other hand, it was not necessary to happen, because something else could have happened, then this possibility is due to chance.

There are therefore two laws that govern every event: necessity or randomness.

This is of your own making only, and until you start defining how you are using some of the words here, you are not being fully understood.

The necessary events may or may not be determinable.
That is, it is possible to predict them and backwards to establish their causes, or this is not possible.

But even if it is not possible, practically or even theoretically because the event is intrinsically indeterminate, we are still in the realm of necessity.
That is, the event is the effect of causes.

Maybe if you provide some examples for us to look at, then what you are saying may make more sense.

Conversely, the truly random event has no cause.

Write how it could even be a possibility for an event to occur without a cause, then we would at least have some thing, which could then make that possible event an actuality. But until then it is not yet even a possibility. Well not as far as I have been made aware. You, however, may show otherwise.

It too cannot be predicted and the causes cannot be traced. But for a different reason.
There are no causes!

Are you referring to any thing in particular?

If yes, then what, exactly?

If there are no causes, there is also no rule that this random event must respect.

Do you mean, 'must be respected', or do you really mean, 'this random event must respect some thing'?

Therefore it is not even possible to calculate the probability of its occurrence.

Obviously.

If there are absolutely no causes at all for some unknown event to occur, then obviously you could not calculate what you have absolutely no idea of.

Did you really need to tell us this?

Because the probability is produced by the analysis of the causes.
Probability is always and only relative to necessity.

Again, 'necessity' in relation to 'what', exactly?