Probability has nothing to do with randomness

[Age]

"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.

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

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?

Will you just give an example of an 'uncaused event'?

If no, then why not?

I would like you to inform us of what IS a non-caused event. If you just list all of the events that MIGHT BE an 'uncaused event', I could instantly inform you of HOW they were ACTUALLY caused.

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.

Either there is AN uncaused event, or there is NOT.

If you just 'try to' DEFLECT or STALL from providing a ACTUAL uncaused event, then the rest of what you write is REALLY just moot.

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.

It is hard enough following your VERY TWISTED and CONTORTED view of things in 'english', let alone adding some other 'language' to the equation here.

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!

Your so-called "father" had sexual intercourse with your so-called "mother", from which CAUSED a human body, of which 'you' are within. So, 'where', exactly, is the 'chance'?

If 'you' are here 'by chance' because "your father" met "your mother" 'by chance', then absolutely EVERY thing that CAUSED that 'chance meeting' to occur was also 'by chance'.

But, so what?

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 considering the Fact that it is not even a POSSIBILITY for an event to occur without cause, what it would entail for 'you' to find "yourself" in front of such and even would be AN IMPOSSIBILITY.

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.

Have you FORGOTTEN the question? Or, are you just PURPOSELY attempting to DISTRACT here?

"alan1000's" question WAS:
Can you give an example of what might be an "uncaused event"?

My question to you now IS:

Will you give an example of an 'uncaused event'?

And,

If no, then WHY NOT?

If there are NO 'uncaused events', then WHY even speak as though there are?

[Age]

...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.

You say;

'the random event' 'has no cause'.

WHICH 'random event' has had no cause?

Or, WHICH 'random event' will have no cause?

If 'you' nor "another" can NOT name AN event, which has NO cause, then NONE exist.

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

So, then what are you talking about, EXACTLY?

[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.

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

You confuse it with the indeterminable.

I do not, and I did not.

I said nothing whatsoever about time, which is a third dimension of the issue to which you've now equivocated again.

So now you've got probability, causality, and chronology, and you don't know which one "randomness" refers to -- or rather, you've errantly said that it applies to all three.

You're seriously messed up, from a logical perspective.

[bobmax]

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

You confuse it with the indeterminable.

I do not, and I did not.

I said nothing whatsoever about time, which is a third dimension of the issue to which you've now equivocated again.

So now you've got probability, causality, and chronology, and you don't know which one "randomness" refers to -- or rather, you've errantly said that it applies to all three.

You're seriously messed up, from a logical perspective.

Any comparison is always possible on any topic.

And we certainly cannot expect to convince the other party.

However, there is an essential condition for a real comparison.
There must be faith in the Truth in both.

If it is perceived that there is no such faith in the counterpart, the probability is high that the comparison is useless.

[Immanuel Can]

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

You confuse it with the indeterminable.

I do not, and I did not.

I said nothing whatsoever about time, which is a third dimension of the issue to which you've now equivocated again.

So now you've got probability, causality, and chronology, and you don't know which one "randomness" refers to -- or rather, you've errantly said that it applies to all three.

You're seriously messed up, from a logical perspective.

Any comparison is always possible on any topic.

Like "apples and oranges," you mean?

At least those two are fruit. You don't know WHAT "randomness" means, at all, apparently. You think it means everything -- chronology, probability, causality...

And we certainly cannot expect to convince the other party.

Not if he's not thinking straight, getting his definitions consistent and being rational, no.

[Belinda]

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.

Yes, but what about possibility? Possibility takes us straight to metaphysics.