Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

[Sy Borg]

To what extent do people here see this question as connected with the question of determinism?

If both randomness and determinism are universalized then they are logically antithetical. But there is no need, and no grounds, for universalizing them. I.e., the universe may be largely, but not entirely, deterministic.

That's close to my impressions. Apparent randomness is everywhere, but it's really complexity giving the impression of randomness.

An awful lot of reality seems to be deterministic - deeply so on a practical level, so the question only involves fine details unrelated to the practical question of freedom. Of course, we are not free. We are thrust into this life confused and gasping for air, which is also how we exit. In between, people order you about until you reach an age where the main tyrant in your life is your own body. Benetar makes some fair points about life (albeit short-sighted IMO).

So, while we are not free in practical terms, freedom/randomness is posited by QM. If quanta are fundamental, then reality is somewhat random at its smallest scales. However, if the activity of quanta is influenced by unknown particles/waves/fields, then the question of randomness v chaos is shifted back one level.

In that sense, like the (non-anthropomorphic) God question, this debate can easily fall into unresolvable speculative regression. How can we ever be sure that we have delved as far as possible?

[GE Morton]

The mathematical nature of robotics and the existence of pre-encoded forms like triangles or the color spectrum imply random doesn't exist.

They imply no such thing.

[Ecurb]

"Randomness" is dependent on a point of view. From the point of view of the poker player drawing to two pair, he has 4/47 chance of making a full house. That's because the distribution of the cards is random, as far as he knows. Of course the distribution is not not random as far as an omniscient observer (or anyone who can see the other side of the cards) knows. Nonetheless, it's perfectly reasonable for the poker player to call the distribution "random".

[GE Morton]

"Randomness" is dependent on a point of view. From the point of view of the poker player drawing to two pair, he has 4/47 chance of making a full house. That's because the distribution of the cards is random, as far as he knows. Of course the distribution is not not random as far as an omniscient observer (or anyone who can see the other side of the cards) knows. Nonetheless, it's perfectly reasonable for the poker player to call the distribution "random".

More specifically, "randomness" depends on what one knows.

The term has two meanings: 1) in most ordinary uses it just means "unpredictable." I.e., the cause of the event is not known (you can't predict an event if you don't know what causes it). There is no implication here that it HAD no cause. 2) In some philosophical discussions it means, "uncaused." The former use does not contradict determinism, the latter does. Sometimes "random" is reserved for 1), and "truly random" used for 2).

Several posters here confuse/conflate those meanings.

[d3r31nz1g3]

Random does not exist.

[d3r31nz1g3]

There are an infinite number of numbers.
The strings of these numbers, as in the number 678,989, have infinite integers.

How could you generate a random number that has a random arrangement of 0-9 integers across a random integer string?

Will the random number have 5 integers? Will it have a billion? A centillion?

A random number has to be a random arrangement of 0-9 integers across a random number of integers. It could be a 3 integer string, it could be a centillion to the centillionth power of a string.

Generating a truly random number is impossible.

[value]

Pure chaos and pure randomness might be considered the same. However, within those concepts 'an event' would be impossible in my opinion.

How would 'an event' be possible in pure chaos?

Possible? Probably, yes. But predictable? Presumably not. I suspect that, in "pure chaos", an 'event' might be difficult even to recognise?

Wouldn't an event break the purity of the chaos of randomness by definition? If not, why?

[Pattern-chaser]

If a contributor cannot offer justification for their position, that position will (reasonably) be devalued in the eyes of their fellow contributors. That's as close as we get to 'burdens'.

That is all that the "burden of proof" means --- i.e., that the proponent of a thesis has an intellectual obligation to supply evidence or arguments for his claim.

No, it means that if the proponent does not offer "evidence or arguments for his claim", then there are (obviously) consequences. I.e. in this case, that his claim(s) are devalued in the eyes of his fellow commentators.

[Pattern-chaser]

Is there chaos or cosmos?

If chaos, then each event is a random event: if cosmos, then each event is a necessary event.

In that case, both?

But Cosmos and Chaos are mutually exclusive.

Even so, perhaps they could co-exist, but not in the same part(s) of the universe at the same time?

[Pattern-chaser]

To what extent do people here see this question as connected with the question of determinism?

If both randomness and determinism are universalized then they are logically antithetical. But there is no need, and no grounds, for universalizing them. I.e., the universe may be largely, but not entirely, deterministic.

That's close to my impressions. Apparent randomness is everywhere, but it's really complexity giving the impression of randomness.

An awful lot of reality seems to be deterministic - deeply so on a practical level, so the question only involves fine details unrelated to the practical question of freedom. Of course, we are not free. We are thrust into this life confused and gasping for air, which is also how we exit. In between, people order you about until you reach an age where the main tyrant in your life is your own body. Benetar makes some fair points about life (albeit short-sighted IMO).

So, while we are not free in practical terms, freedom/randomness is posited by QM. If quanta are fundamental, then reality is somewhat random at its smallest scales. However, if the activity of quanta is influenced by unknown particles/waves/fields, then the question of randomness v chaos is shifted back one level.

In that sense, like the (non-anthropomorphic) God question, this debate can easily fall into unresolvable speculative regression. How can we ever be sure that we have delved as far as possible?

That seems to sum up our current position in this topic well. It looks as though much of what appears random is not, but that certain QM-based events might well be 'truly' random. There may be no other random events than these...?

[Pattern-chaser]

Pure chaos and pure randomness might be considered the same. However, within those concepts 'an event' would be impossible in my opinion.

How would 'an event' be possible in pure chaos?

Possible? Probably, yes. But predictable? Presumably not. I suspect that, in "pure chaos", an 'event' might be difficult even to recognise?

Wouldn't an event break the purity of the chaos of randomness by definition? If not, why?

I'm not sure why it would? If an event occurred, presumably in a random place, and at a random time, why would that "break the purity"? Are you saying that in a chaotic/random situation, no event can happen? That is to say, that nothing could ever happen, and a chaotic/random situation is eternally static; unchanging? That would seem quite non-random, wouldn't it?

[Belindi]

Is there chaos or cosmos?

If chaos, then each event is a random event: if cosmos, then each event is a necessary event.

In that case, both?

But Cosmos and Chaos are mutually exclusive.

Even so, perhaps they could co-exist, but not in the same part(s) of the universe at the same time?

But don't parts of the universe affect each other?
David Hume's observation that all we can know (about Cosmic order) is constant correlations, is true. We do know constant positive and negative correlations. I'ts impossible to know ontic chaos.

Not only is scientific and technological success here right now, but also empirical facts have been the mainstay of all successful species. These are at best only circumstantial evidences of Cosmos, but of Chaos there is no evidence whatsoever.

[Pattern-chaser]

But don't parts of the universe affect each other?

Oh yes! I may be a bit unclear as to what, exactly, you mean by "cosmos", but that I'm quite sure of. All parts of the universe are connected, indivisibly and irreversibly.

[Belindi]

But don't parts of the universe affect each other?

Oh yes! I may be a bit unclear as to what, exactly, you mean by "cosmos", but that I'm quite sure of. All parts of the universe are connected, indivisibly and irreversibly.

By Cosmos I mean that each event is a necessary event because each event fits a whole (or Cosmos ) that is the uncaused cause of all events. So it seems that what you call universe I call Cosmos.

I give it a capital letter because Cosmos , as self caused, is unlike it's effects or parts. I don't mean to imply deity by my use of the capital C.

[Pattern-chaser]

But don't parts of the universe affect each other?

Oh yes! I may be a bit unclear as to what, exactly, you mean by "cosmos", but that I'm quite sure of. All parts of the universe are connected, indivisibly and irreversibly.

By Cosmos I mean that each event is a necessary event because each event fits a whole (or Cosmos ) that is the uncaused cause of all events. So it seems that what you call universe I call Cosmos.

I give it a capital letter because Cosmos , as self caused, is unlike it's effects or parts. I don't mean to imply deity by my use of the capital C.

Fair enough.

...

But wait; what? The Cosmos (universe) is self-caused? Or have I misunderstood your intended meaning?