Can you perhaps give an example that differentiates between "true random" and "random"?True random means complete absence of causality. You can never predict it no matter what.
Random can be predicted in theory, we just use the term due to there being too many unknown variables.
Brownian motion might be considered random but not truly random. I believe it's just erratic enough to be ridiculously difficult to predict. Like the break in a game of pool, where the balls end up is random but technically you could predict it knowing all the variables.Can you perhaps give an example that differentiates between "true random" and "random"?
I've tried. I cant think of anything truly random either. I don't think such an occurence exists. Sure, a lot of people make the argument that you'd have to go subatomic to find that, but I'll bet good money that when enough understanding of quantum physics is achieved, it will be found that wont find anything random there either.I honestly cannot think of something truly random. Some say quantum physics might depict true random but of that I'm not entirely sure. True random is a concept, like infinity, that isn't easy to articulate.
Question to all forumites, what's an example of something truly random? Help me out here
I guess anything paranormal could be true random but then how would it be observable is what I'd want to know.
Can you please demonstrate your reasoning (of/in your post) by applying it to the "game of pool" example.There seems to be some issues regarding free will here. Proponents of free will in this thread are saying the agent is capable of making a decision and thus, free will. By that narrow definition, sure, take your definition of free will and let it comfort you . I don't care about that. I care about statements like, "Humans are able to make decisions free from the constraints of cause and effect (causal determinacy).
1) Libertarian free will states you make decisions free from cause and effect (causal determinism).
2) You cannot make any decisions which are free from a cause or an effect.
3) Thus, you have no free will.
1) Soul / Mind / Consciousness are not matter / physical
2) Your thoughts come from your mind / soul / consciousness thus they don't need to obey the laws of cause and effect (causal determinism)
3) Thus, your thoughts are free and you have libertarian free will
Wrong. Proof required for existence of the soul / mind / consciousness. Until demonstrable evidence / proof has been provided, no luck here.
1) The universe is indeterministic (events are not caused, or not caused deterministically).
2) Indeterminism is the belief that no event is certain and the entire outcome of anything is probabilistic.
3) You have no free will in a probabilistic OR random universe
4) You still have no free will
Correct. If the universe is random, you have no free will either as everything is just random occurrence and per chance.
Conclusion: You have no libertarian free will and you are not able to make decisions free from causal determinism, neither are you able to make libertarian free will decisions in an indeterminate universe.
thats not the issue for me, the issue is how to explain to a judge in a court of law that I have no free will where free will is defined within this context as the choice to abide or break the social contractThere seems to be some issues regarding free will here. Proponents of free will in this thread are saying the agent is capable of making a decision and thus, free will. By that narrow definition, sure, take your definition of free will and let it comfort you...
It will be irrelevant in a court room. In the same way cause and effect led you to commit crimes, cause and effect will lead a judge to convict you. Free will or no.thats not the issue for me, the issue is how to explain to a judge in a court of law that I have no free will where free will is defined within this context as the choice to abide or break the social contract