Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
No, but some things can appear random, and are too complicated to predict.
13
59%
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later[^][v]#87,094
Chaos Theory says yes, yes it does. Always.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 minutes after the original post[^][v]#87,095
@previous (B)
Chaos theory says things aren't random! That's the whole point, they make it a science to analyze seemingly random but ultimately deterministic systems.
From Wikipedia: > Chaos theory is a field of study in applied mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including physics, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions; an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^][v]#87,097
@previous (A)
Well never mind then.
I was told wrong.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^][v]#87,098
@87,095 (A)
your in the middle of calculus class and your teacher suddenly bursts into song and dance about nachos, he or she hasn't had nachos in a while, and he/she has no particular intreast in nachos; explain that
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^][v]#87,101
@previous (C)
You want me to explain the cause of a hypothetical event that hasn't actually happened?
Sure it's possible someone would do that, but I wouldn't know why unless I had all the information available, and time to look it over. I do not follow my teachers around, and I do not have an intimate understanding of their psychological state. Perhaps they had a specific reason, or just decided that life has been rather mundane recently and decided to mix things up, it's impossible to know without the full information.
But their actions are determined by their choices, made in the mind, which is ruled by biological laws, in turn ruled by physical laws, etc.
(Edited 32 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 17 minutes after the original post[^][v]#87,102
drea mworks joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 minutes after the original post[^][v]#87,104
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
There are probably some factors influencing on that
drea mworks double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 minutes after the original post[^][v]#87,105
@87,098 (C)
That's because some chemicals in the teachers brain started to react, making the teacher dance because of the new chemical.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 13 seconds later, 20 minutes after the original post[^][v]#87,106
@87,101 (A)
no, this is based on you knowing everything a bout them
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 12 seconds later, 20 minutes after the original post[^][v]#87,107
@87,102 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
The movement of the planets, traits people were born with, the weather, whether crops would do well, and much, much more was also thought to be random.
As our understanding grows we understand why things behave in a certain way, and that they are not actually random. Do we know now how radioactive decay works? No, but that does not make it random, it makes it unknown.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^][v]#87,109
@previous (A)
Well if you're going to say that any process we call "random" is actually not random, we just don't understand it well enough, then you're never going to find a random process. If you don't presuppose that we call things "random" because we're ignorant of their causes, then you will find some events that are random.
sim !!hlGHHomvc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 24 minutes after the original post[^][v]#87,110
Repetition is a form of change.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^][v]#87,111
@87,106 (C)
What? Based on the information I have about my teacher I could not have predicted the nacho dance and song. I cannot understand why they did it because I do not have the proper information.
In the past people could not predict the weather, but with more information (meteorological technology) eventually did understand why.
Someone might have argued "The weather is random", and I could not tell them how it worked, but when more information was available it would be obvious that weather is not random.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^][v]#87,115
@87,109 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Obviously nothing has ever been proven to be random, but simply appears random. (Radioactive decay). I'm not even sure how one would prove something is random, because it has been shown in the past that the inability to predict it is not proof of randomness (we couldn't predict planetary motion, or weather).
However following the trend we are on now, where every year more is understood, it would be much more plausible that the many things we think of as random is actually just unknown.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 31 minutes after the original post[^][v]#87,117
> You can't proof something is random, you can only disprove it by finding it's algorithm
Exactly.
But why would you believe something is random when time and time again, the many (seemingly) random events are proven to follow certain rules?
Radioactive decay hasn't been proven to follow a certain pattern yet. But in the past hundreds of (seemingly) random things have eventually been understand, what makes you think radioactive decay is different?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 41 minutes after the original post[^][v]#87,138
@87,126 (Magic Conch !VhFkkDMNJw)
No. Randomness also has to be proved as well.
Not knowing how something works leaves it open to be proven to be either random or following certain rules.
drea mworks replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^][v]#87,140
I want a button on google that redirects me too a random webpage
✄----- !ZSNgHQb5Ig joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 38 seconds later, 44 minutes after the original post[^][v]#87,141
Nothing is truly random because for something to be truly random it can have no influence, yet everything that exists does so by some influence take this for example... @87,098 (C)
The teacher will have an understanding of Nachos, probably having tasted or at least seen them before. The teacher acknowledging the existence of Nachos influenced his decision about what to sing.
Because there is a past and everything we can comprehend is because of what this past was then we can say that anything we can comprehend can not be random because it has been influenced by the past (whether it be a minute chemical reaction or the existence of an atom at one point everything we know and understand is part of a chain of events.
If random does exist we can never know it, for us to know it we would have to map out every event that has ever happened down to the minutest detail to determine whether or not it has been influenced, even then should we find nothing (if it were possible, which it is not as you would need to map every particle in the universes behaviour for every moment it has existed) we would still be taking a guess whether we just don't know the influences of the random occurence or whether it truly is random.
drea mworks replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^][v]#87,142
> Nothing is truly random because for something to be truly random it can have no influence, yet everything that exists does so by some influence take this for example... @87,098 (C) > > The teacher will have an understanding of Nachos, probably having tasted or at least seen them before. The teacher acknowledging the existence of Nachos influenced his decision about what to sing.
Counter-argument would be that the teacher would randomly think up words as he sang
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^][v]#87,153
> Counter-argument would be that the teacher would randomly think up words as he sang
No, the decision as to what to say comes from a complex system of neurons in his brain. It may follow a unique pattern that people do not use in daily conversation, but there are causes to each action. Neurons fire according to biological rules (just as a computer fires according to electrical rules) which themselves occur because of rules that define how particles react together.
DO we know why he did it? Not specifically, but we do know for a fact biological rules and physical laws are unchanging, and that those are what make up his mind.
drea mworks replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 57 minutes after the original post[^][v]#87,154
Magic Conch !VhFkkDMNJw replied with this 15 years ago, 15 seconds later, 58 minutes after the original post[^][v]#87,156
@87,142 (drea mworks) @87,141 (✄----- !ZSNgHQb5Ig)
just deciding to start singing about nachos without giving it any further thought = random
there is no process that he used to arrive at this thought, you nigs are thinking too hard
(Edited 8 seconds later.)
drea mworks replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 59 minutes after the original post[^][v]#87,157
@previous (Magic Conch !VhFkkDMNJw)
Yes there is. See@87,105 (drea mworks)
Magic Conch !VhFkkDMNJw replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#87,166
@previous (drea mworks)
again, thinking too hard thoughts are based on iodine flow between nerve cells, the only "process" involved is osmosis, and that aint even set in stone
drea mworks replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#87,170
@previous (Magic Conch !VhFkkDMNJw) > are based on
There. It isn't random.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#87,174
> The movement of the planets, traits people were born with, the weather, whether crops would do well, and much, much more was also thought to be random.
This is simply not true. Man has studied the constellations for thousands of years, ancient man was able to domesticate animals through selective breeding, most places around the world have set weather patterns (wet season, dry season, or a sea breeze every afternoon), and crops are mainly dependent on water and that has always been known.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#87,188
> Man has studied the constellations for thousands of years
The example I gave was planetary motion, which wasn't understood until Johannes Kepler figured it out in the 17th century, until then people had thought it was random.
Magic Conch !VhFkkDMNJw replied with this 15 years ago, 30 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#87,199
@87,170 (drea mworks) > that aint even set in stone
r04r joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#87,272
Yes. Galactic noise.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#87,280
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#87,299
@87,188 (A)
no, they knew they followed the same path year after year. Mars, Venus, Jupiter &c. &c.
sim is azn joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#87,336
as random as slot machines.
✄----- !ZSNgHQb5Ig replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#87,337
@87,156 (Magic Conch !VhFkkDMNJw)
Something that is random has no influencing factors.
The fact that the teacher chose to sang random words that exist shows that it was not random. Had he not known what nachos are or had nachos not been invented then he would not of sang about them. Thus the creation of nachos or the point where he learnt what they are was the beginning of a long series of events that lead him to sing about them some time later. The fact that they were named Nachos and not Pigfeet or any other name is also an influencing factor, had they not he could be singing about something else entirely.
Nothing you see or hear each day is random, you think it is because you only see a small amount of what is going on at any given time. Had his mother not given birth to him he would not of sang about Nachos which is another influencing factor.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#87,339
@87,280 (A)
You really seem to be approaching randomness from a deterministic perspective, and conflating the idea of randomness as unpredictability with randomness as being an event "without a cause".
As Fake Anon (@87,109 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)) has said, if you approach this as if you have the explanation to everything in your back pocket, then you will conclude that everything has a cause and that you can explain every movement of every particle from the big bang onward. There can be no other universe existing and unfolding in any other way from the moment of "creation". You would state that there is no way events could unfold otherwise from the first moment.
You are essentially saying that everything that has ever happened and will happen is destined and there is nothing to be done about it. That is quite a story in itself, no?
You seem to be placing quite a bit of faith in the idea that particles are merely billiard balls to be knocked around according to set rules. Do you mind explaining why you feel this way and perhaps reconciling that belief with our current understanding of the wave-particle duality and our understanding of physics? You seem to be placing a lot of faith in a clockwork universe here. Can you offer a good explanation as to why?
Greenologist !pFNWNYROxA joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 22 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#87,343
Life. Nuff said!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^][v]#87,471
Read up on Johannes Kepler and the Laws of Planetary motion.
It is not as simple as "hurr durr they orbit around the sun", there is a lot more involved in their movement.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^][v]#87,473
@87,298 (brie !OudrPWaUDQ)
All of them operate according to the laws of physics.
You claim they are random, but you can't prove this?
> The proof is you can't explain how it works.
I have given examples of things unexplained in the past, also claimed as random. Obviously this is not proof of randomness as eventually it was figured out to not be random.
How can you say the same thing wont happen for cosmic radiation? We know their sources, that alone is a certain pattern. It does not come from everywhere equally, and it would be ridiculous to say it's a coincidence it comes from Quasars, meteorites, and the rest by mere coincidence, but does not come as strong from other sources. There is always a reason.
The Editor !FuckWtfW8M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 37 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^][v]#87,486
> You really seem to be approaching randomness from a deterministic perspective, and conflating the idea of randomness as unpredictability with randomness as being an event "without a cause".
Randomness is something without a cause. If it has a cause it's not random, it's determined. How else could you define randomness, except for the colloquial "hard to predict" defintion? > As Fake Anon (@87,109 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)) has said, if you approach this as if you have the explanation to everything in your back pocket,
That's not how I approach it. I do not have the explanation for everything, I am not omnipotent. However an cause does exist. > then you will conclude that everything has a cause and that you can explain every movement of every particle from the big bang onward. There can be no other universe existing and unfolding in any other way from the moment of "creation". You would state that there is no way events could unfold otherwise from the first moment.
True. > You are essentially saying that everything that has ever happened and will happen is destined and there is nothing to be done about it. That is quite a story in itself, no?
This does not mean free will does not exist. I can chose to do one thing over the other, but why I chose to do A instead of B was a result of a neurochemical reaction, which occured thanks to the placement of neurons, biological and physical laws, etc. > You seem to be placing quite a bit of faith in the idea that particles are merely billiard balls to be knocked around
That isn't faith, that's physics. Particles react to each other in ways that can be observed, measured, and recreated. > Do you mind explaining why you feel this way and perhaps reconciling that belief with our current understanding of the wave-particle duality and our understanding of physics? You seem to be placing a lot of faith in a clockwork universe here. Can you offer a good explanation as to why?
I believe only in the laws that have been proven. As to the yet, unexplained actions, who act in ways without a visible cause- that is not proof of randomness. Perhaps someone like you would have said "tsunamis just happen" in the past, and that "it's ridiculous to think there is a cause for it, and a cause for that cause, and so on". But today we know that the movement of tectonic plates cause tsunamis, and saying "tsunamis just happen" would be ridiculous.
Why is it that you think all of the unexplained events today are random, when history has shown again and again unexplained events are just that- unexplained, and often we do find reasons for the ways things work they way they do.
Show someone not-technically-literate a computer, perhaps someone from a developing nation. Show them the random number generator, and they will believe it's random. Of course, it's not really- it takes the time, mouse placement, or perhaps a number of other factor, hashes them, and simplifies it into a set length. It all happens out of sight, and so people will assume it "just came about", but in reality it has a cause.
Systems can be amazingly complex, but that doesn't make them random.
Again, can anyone here prove anything is random, when we have established that lack of explanation for an event is not proof?
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
drea mworks replied with this 15 years ago, 35 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#87,507
✄----- !ZSNgHQb5Ig double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#87,521
@87,339 (M)
What does wave particle duality have to do with anything? It applies to everything (not random) and just means that everything has a wavelength. Wavelengths are predictable and not random, what is your point?
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 25 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#87,522
@87,501 (A) > Randomness is something without a cause. If it has a cause it's not random, it's determined. How else could you define randomness, except for the colloquial "hard to predict" defintion?
You have answered your own question here. As commonly used, randomness is adequately defined by unpredictability. A die toss or a coin flip have obvious causes. Merely stating that they are predictable in some vaguely conceivable universe where have the time and resources to work out the problem doesn't suddenly make them predictable in any real sense.
> > You seem to be placing quite a bit of faith in the idea that particles are merely billiard balls to be knocked around > That isn't faith, that's physics. Particles react to each other in ways that can be observed, measured, and recreated.
Unfortunately, it is not physics. There are common events (the path of an individual photon, radioactive decay, etc.) that cannot be explained with resorting to a probabilistic model. Actual physics cannot adequately explain these events in any way that supports your claim. Without this, your claim is just a lot of hand waving and faith that the universe works like you claim.
> can anyone here prove anything is random
LOL We've been over this. If you're just going blindly claim that every event is predictable, it's pointless to ask the question.
@previous (✄----- !ZSNgHQb5Ig)
Subatomic particles that act like waves don't act like particles. For instance, the path of an inidivual photon in something like the double slit experiment cannot be predicted. That poses a problem for OP's clockwork universe.
(Edited 9 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 32 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#87,536
@previous (M) > You have answered your own question here. As commonly used, randomness is adequately defined by unpredictability. A die toss or a coin flip have obvious causes.
I said in the title "true" randomness. To clarify, by "true" I did not mean "colloquially".
> LOL We've been over this. If you're just going blindly claim that every event is predictable, it's pointless to ask the question. > Subatomic particles that act like waves don't act like particles. For instance, the path of an inidivual photon in something like the double slit experiment cannot be predicted. That poses a problem for OP's clockwork universe.
If that is proof of randomness (it cannot be predicted) than planetary motion was proof of randomness too. But of course it wasn't as someone eventually figured out that there was a reason the moved the way they do.
Again you claim unpredictability is proof of randomness, when we have been over this several times.
✄----- !ZSNgHQb5Ig replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#87,537
This argument is moot, we will never know if true randomness due to the nature of randomness we cannot know whether we just do not know how something works or if it is random. Once we discover how it works it is no longer random because it is influenced.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#87,541
@87,536 (A) > Again you claim unpredictability is proof of randomness
Could you indicate where I claimed proof of anything?
You seem to be bent on simply gainsaying any claim of randomness from a deterministic position. I still wonder why you hold to that position so strongly.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^][v]#87,551
> > Again you claim unpredictability is proof of randomness > Could you indicate where I claimed proof of anything?
I ask: > Again, can anyone here prove anything is random, when we have established that lack of explanation for an event is not proof?
You go on about subatomic particles and how they cannot be predicted. > implying not being able to predict something is proof of randomness.
Again: Yes or no can randomness be proved, if so, how would someone prove it?
You avoid answering the question directly. Do you believe randomness can be proved?
> I still wonder why you hold to that position so strongly.
It's like this. Many things are called random in the past, and information gives us more ways to prove that these things are not random.
I have seen apple trees, as have many people. I have an apple in my hand, and while I haven't seen it grow myself, I'd say for sure it was grown on an apple tree. Someone could claim this is faith, and that perhaps the apple was grown on a bush (something that has never been proven).
Perhaps it is possible that something is random, just as it is technically possible an apple bush exists. But it is ridiculous to assume either. Chances are that randomness does not exist, and that no apple bush exists, see?
Why are you so aspie? Yes, anything is possible, and we can say "cogito ergo sum" and say that nothing else can be proven, and fall into some pointless debate about how we can't know anything for sure... but in trying to stay in reality here:
Apples grow on tree, everything has a cause.
Some day (perhaps when we are both still alive) some scientist, or group of, will publish a paper detailing how radioactive decay works. Perhaps they will be able to predict which way the photon goes in the double slit experiment.
It happens all the time. It's a trend. The pool of unexplained events is draining into that of explained events. It's not a leap to say something else in the former will eventually reach the latter. It happens all the time.
That's why I am hesitant to believe that there is actually something out there that is random.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 21 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^][v]#87,559
@previous (A) > You go on about subatomic particles and how they cannot be predicted. > > implying not being able to predict something is proof of randomness.
Pointing out a lack of proof for your position is not asserting proof for another. You are committing a logical fallacy here, and any implications you may have read into that statement are your own.
> Apples grow on tree, everything has a cause.
You still seem to be clinging to this.
> Some day (perhaps when we are both still alive) some scientist, or group of, will publish a paper detailing how radioactive decay works. Perhaps they will be able to predict which way the photon goes in the double slit experiment.
Sure, that's conceivable, but just banking on that happening isn't explaining how the universe works.
> That's why I am hesitant to believe that there is actually something out there that is random.
It's a fair position to take, but just stating that position and then asking people to prove you wrong seems to be asking people to prove a negative. I suppose your position is safe in that no one will be able to prove you wrong, but it is hardly compelling.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^][v]#87,561
> > You go on about subatomic particles and how they cannot be predicted. > > > implying not being able to predict something is proof of randomness. > Pointing out a lack of proof for your position is not asserting proof for another.
Not necessarily, but after I ask you if you believe randomness can be proved you said this, which would imply you think this is proof. In context the meaning changes. > > That's why I am hesitant to believe that there is actually something out there that is random. > It's a fair position to take, but just stating that position and then asking people to prove you wrong seems to be asking people to prove a negative.
I'm not asking people to "prove me wrong", just to explain why they would believe randomness exists. The only answer? Lack of predicitability, which has been shown to be wrong.
So then, we have 8 people (in this thread alone) who believe random things occur, and no rationale. I would think there would be a few arguments at least that could be presented.
(Edited 40 seconds later.)
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^][v]#87,568
@previous (A) > The only answer? Lack of predicitability
Lack of predictability is the only working definition of randomness you are going find.
> which has been shown to be wrong.
Just asserting that everything has a cause isn't showing anything to be wrong. Simply stating that the universe works in some fashion doesn't mean it does. Merely positing that someday everything will be proven isn't a convincing argument.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^][v]#87,578
@previous (M) > Lack of predictability is the only working definition of randomness you are going find.
Guess not, because I have found another, more "techinical" definition: > lacking a cause, or reason
> > > which has been shown to be wrong. > Just asserting that everything has a cause isn't showing anything to be wrong.
It is not wrong because I have asserted everything has a cause. Pay attention (for the 5th time):
Lack of predictably is not proof of randomness because in the past things were unpredictable, and later made predictable.
We cannot predict radioactive decay (like planetary motion in the past), but that does not prove it is random because in the future the possibility exists that we may understand how it works (just like planetary motion).
For it to be proof of randomness it has to be 100%. They have to be able to say "this is random, and we know that for sure". Obviously the possibility exists that we maybe eventually figure out how it works, and so it is not at all proof.
> Simply stating that the universe works in some fashion doesn't mean it does.
Now it is obvious you are ignoring the points I have made several times. I did not say "It's true cause I say so" I said "there is no proof of randomness, because it could happen that someone understands how it works".
You are falling for the same fallacy you criticized me for. Just because I say there is no proof of randomness does not mean I am claiming I have absolute proof of cause and effect (I admit, that is merely my belief, and not proven).
brie !OudrPWaUDQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^][v]#87,579
It seems that this conversation can go nowhere, because different people have different concepts of the word random.
The meaning of "Random" depends on how you are using the word.
Is there anything that is ABSOLUTELY, COMPLETELY AND FULLY RANDOM? In the sense that something occurs based on no previous event or conditions, and for no purpose at all...
Perhaps not in this universe!
For the meaning of random that is statistally equal odds for a given set of events to occur, and one of them will occur, but we don't know which yet... yes that sort of randomness is fully abundant in our universe.
For the meaning of random that is simply disorderedness, again yes there is plenty of that sort of randomness.
Sure, the question is a good one... but not if you refuse to accept an answer.
lol
The Editor !FuckWtfW8M replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^][v]#87,582
@87,507 (drea mworks)
i l y 2 bro @87,515 (✄----- !ZSNgHQb5Ig)
It's a dog, man...
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^][v]#87,604
@87,578 (A) > For it to be proof of randomness it has to be 100%. They have to be able to say "this is random, and we know that for sure".
Like I said before, that's a pretty safe position. I don't think anyone will be able to prove the absence of some cause.
Why do you ask that people do the impossible to justify randomness, when you seem to accept the claim that nothing is random based on assumptions and conjectures about a deterministic universe?