Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

Logically, determinism makes sense - everything as a knock-on effect of something else, although some will complain that it's "turtles all the way down".

Determinism, and His sister, Uncertainty, stroll through life as they see fit, not according to our needs or whims. Then you reach the turtles...

[Sy Borg]

Logically, determinism makes sense - everything as a knock-on effect of something else, although some will complain that it's "turtles all the way down".

Determinism, and His sister, Uncertainty, stroll through life as they see fit, not according to our needs or whims. Then you reach the turtles...

At that point, believers will talk of a prime mover (but won't speculate about what might have brought the entity into being). Others will figure that's it would have started with a tiny fluctuation in vacuum energy - or eternity. Each option leaves questions unanswered.

[value]

Determinism considers that physical reality has a foundation in the form of what are considered laws (laws of physics). The idea of these fundamental laws is the root of the idea that physics is anything other than philosophy.

The philosophical impossibility of true randomness would prove that the idea of fundamental laws is invalid. This implies that there is more to it than mere unpredictability.

[Sy Borg]

Determinism considers that physical reality has a foundation in the form of what are considered laws (laws of physics). The idea of these fundamental laws is the root of the idea that physics is anything other than philosophy.

The philosophical impossibility of true randomness would prove that the idea of fundamental laws is invalid. This implies that there is more to it than mere unpredictability.

In the end, we cannot be certain if true randomness exists. While we consider how all in existence today is the result of endless knock-on effects, maybe at extremely small scales - far beyond that which we can measure - there are germs of genuine randomness?

It occurs to me that, just as people sometimes insert God into the gaps of our knowledge (god of the gaps), we can also insert randomness ... or consciousness ... or aliens :)

[Pattern-chaser]

The philosophical impossibility of true randomness would prove that the idea of fundamental laws is invalid.

"Fundamental laws" are approximations; the Universe itself is the only guaranteed-correct reference. So those so-called laws *are* "invalid", i.e. not objectively and universally correct, but maybe not in the sense you intended?

[value]

When it concerns the "fundamental laws" of physics, it concerns more than an 'approximation'.

For example, the fundamental law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of physics, and if it were to be broken, it would render much of physics invalid.

Without the conservation of energy, the fundamental laws of thermodynamics, classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, and other core areas of physics would be called into question.

More simply: without the "fundamental law" of energy conservation physics would be reduced to philosophy.

[Sy Borg]

If there is a multiverse, the BB may or may not have broken the law of energy conservation, depending on the model.

[Pattern-chaser]

When it concerns the "fundamental laws" of physics, it concerns more than an 'approximation'.

For example, the fundamental law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of physics, and if it were to be broken, it would render much of physics invalid.

Without the conservation of energy, the fundamental laws of thermodynamics, classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, and other core areas of physics would be called into question.

More simply: without the "fundamental law" of energy conservation physics would be reduced to philosophy.

You've missed the point. These 'laws' do not govern the Universe. They don't govern anything at all. This can easily be seen by wiping out the human race. Our laws would instantly disappear, while the Universe would carry on functioning quite happily, with nary a wink. The Universe is the Master; the Reference. Our laws are derived guesswork, something we developed to help us understand the Universe. The Universe doesn't need or want them; we do.

[Trokanmariel]

Daylight's systems, such as atoms, time, spacetime, geography, national geography etc could potentially be the systematic governor of the following random intelligence:

The 2025 Ukraine-Russia war universe, being a user of daylight and sunlight systems (the current application, of the reference of systems doesn't necessarily have to correlate with the former reference) in the style of an Amityville horror house toy.

The puppetry denotation, of toys; it can be an obstacle, it can be a mission to be overcome by the system and formula of the story of the 2025 Ukraine-Russia war universe using the toy, aka using sunlight and daylight like the toy.

Is true randomness possible? If it's verified, that an American presidency, or that a European parliament is needed to be built, and to be used by daylight, and by atoms of the universe, then no, the answer might be no, in regards to the classification model of the 2025 Ukraine-Russia war universe using sunlight and daylight like an Amityville horror house toy.

[B0R5]

Reflective Comment:

If true randomness demands infinite information, and we have no way to verify such a state experimentally or computationally, the real issue may not be randomness itself, but the limits of human perception and cognition. What we often label as “chance” may not indicate the absence of structure — but rather the absence of access to that structure.

Seen this way, the impossibility of proving true randomness doesn’t point to chaos, but possibly to a hidden order — one that eludes our instruments and logic, but not necessarily our experience or intuition.

This leads to a deeper question, not just physical or mathematical, but existential:
Which assumption leads to a more coherent, responsible, and meaningful life — the belief that everything is ultimately random, or the belief that everything happens within a meaningful framework, even if that meaning is concealed from us?

This isn’t just a scientific question. It’s a pedagogical one. It shapes how we raise children, how we act morally, and how we understand our place in the cosmos.

We can live like accidental visitors in a meaningless world —
Or as conscious participants in a story far greater than ourselves, even if we don’t yet know how it ends.

[value]

"If true randomness demands infinite information, and we have no way to verify such a state experimentally or computationally, the real issue may not be randomness itself, but the limits of human perception and cognition. What we often label as “chance” may not indicate the absence of structure — but rather the absence of access to that structure."

Wouldn't your suggestion attempt to place a causal root in front of consciousness, as if its 'potential' for actualization - through which (the idea of) 'infinity' arises - is fundamentally related to structure in the first place?

What would be the basis for the argument that the potential inherent to consciousness should rather be viewed as a limitation relative to pre-existing hidden structure?

You write:

"Seen this way, the impossibility of proving true randomness doesn’t point to chaos, but possibly to a hidden order ... Which assumption leads to a more coherent, responsible, and meaningful life — the belief that everything is ultimately random, or the belief that everything happens within a meaningful framework, even if that meaning is concealed from us?"

What would be your basis for the assertion that pre-existing structure can be a ground for (experiential) meaning or even that one can assume (as you seem to do in your assertion) that it is prerequisite for meaning?

The duality that you pose in your question might reveal that the answer cannot be found in either of the proposed options.

The error in my opinion, is the idea that 'meaning' must pre-exist, which would result in philosophical ideas such as 'the Absolute'.

[B0R5]

The question suggests a subtle but important confusion between meaning as given and meaning as co-created.

In the Consensual Theory of Reality (TKR), meaning is not something that must pre-exist experience — it emerges through the relational interplay of conscious beings who enter into a shared agreement about what reality is and what it is for.

So, no: the basis for meaning does not have to be a pre-existing structure, nor does randomness need to be “proven” or “disproven” in the absolute sense. Instead, the appearance of order or chaos always arises within a horizon of consciousness. And consciousness, in TKR, is not passive — it is participatory.

We do not claim that our agreements are the ultimate Truth — rather, we acknowledge that what we co-create as a shared framework of meaning may serve as a provisional, navigational structure. It is not Revelation, but orientation. In TKR, we preserve a clear distinction:

Revealed Truth comes from God — it transcends and grounds all consensus.

Consensual structures are tools created in community — temporary and revisable, serving our shared experience and mutual understanding.


In TKR, the real question is not “Did meaning exist before us?” but rather “Are we willing to co-create meaning in a way that honors the possibility of truth, invites deeper relation, and dignifies experience?”

What we today call “hidden order” may simply be the next layer of reality we are ready to uncover — together — in reverence, clarity, and courage.

[value]

The question suggests a subtle but important confusion between meaning as given and meaning as co-created.

When it concerns the concept 'randomness' from a fundamental philosophical perspective, it wouldn't be applicable to introduce opinionated or consensus based arguments. The question does demand a resolute answer: it is possible or not.

You wrote:

"If true randomness demands infinite information, and we have no way to verify such a state experimentally or computationally, the real issue may not be randomness itself, but the limits of human perception and cognition. What we often label as “chance” may not indicate the absence of structure — but rather the absence of access to that structure."

Your argument attempts to convert the infinite information requirement for 'true randomness' posed by mathematical specialists on the topic, to the incomplete information argument for the practical or 'common sense' based notion of randomness in daily life: i.e. the luck vs random chance perception.

Your idea of 'true' in true randomness might involve the idea of a pure experiential confirmation that an event was random, or luck, rather than a fundamental philosophical validation of the concept randomness in itself.

This topic aspires to examine the philosophical notion of true randomness and its potential inability.

(2020) When Science and Philosophy meet Randomness, Determinism, and Chaos
What is the theory behind Randomness? Is randomness fundamentally impossible?
https://towardsdatascience.com/when-sci ... db825c3114

[B0R5]

In the Theory of Consensual Reality (TCR), there is no place for objective, unnegotiated randomness, because reality is born in relation — between conscious beings. So if randomness is to be real, it must be:

experiential — that is, lived and encountered by a being;

co-recognizable — possible to interpret in shared consensus;

irreducible — not explainable by any pre-existing pattern.


If true randomness requires infinite information, and we have no access to it — then for us, such randomness does not exist.
What exists is simply ignorance of structure.

[phi]

In my opinion you are attempting to objectify the concept randomness by placing it's 'potential for validity' ("if randomness is to be real, it must be...") in the context of a consensus based concept (object) while the philosophical notion of randomness in itself might touch on a deeper realm of potential that goes beyond what philosopher Robert M. Pirsig calls (and criticizes as) the 'objective-subjective dichotomy'.

You wrote yourself that randomness relates to 'meaning':

"Seen this way, the impossibility of proving true randomness doesn’t point to chaos, but possibly to a hidden order ... Which assumption leads to a more coherent, responsible, and meaningful life[?] — the belief that everything is ultimately random, or the belief that everything happens within a meaningful framework, even if that meaning is concealed from us?"

Your notion reveals that randomness appears to relate to devoid or loss of 'meaning' and that the question whether true randomness is fundamentally impossible concerns an either or scenario: random or 'meaning'.

Your notion of the assertion by mathematical specialists that randomness requires 'infinite information' indicates that the concept might involve a context that is fundamentally 'beginning-less' of nature, rather than being dependent on consensus or conscious experience to facilitate a mere 'endless' infinity that can be 'counted'.

"If true randomness demands infinite information, and we have no way to verify such a state experimentally or computationally..."

You then use this apparent inability for philosophical validation as ground for the assertion that randomness at most involves 'incomplete information'.

"...the real issue may not be randomness itself, but the limits of human perception and cognition. What we often label as “chance” may not indicate the absence of structure — but rather the absence of access to that structure."

This argument appears to be grounded in the experientally derived 'either or' condition that arises when one considers that in lived experience, the idea of 'true randomness' is correlated with devoid of meaning.

In the case that true randomness as a philosophical concept is proven to be fundamentally impossible, randomness might not be 'real' in a physical sense and it might imply that life has meaning as a consequence, however, from a philosophical perspective the concept is still 'real' since it can unlock deeper levels of insights. The idea that these deeper layers of reality would necessarily relate to "hidden order" or "hidden structure" as you write might be incorrect in my opinion, since the idea that the context 'true infinity' is applicable in the examination of the possibility of true randomness implies a context without a 'begin' while still being relevant within a dimension that one can assign the term 'meaning'.