Randomness Doesn't Exist

  • Thread starter DeletedUser8396
  • Start date

DeletedUser8396

Guest
A bit different of a format, I have written a debatable concept with a particular point of view. The goal, obviously, is to debate your personal view on the issue presented on whether you think the idea is valid or why you think it is faulted.

It was suggested to me to post this one here to start off this style of debate. I want to see how it will do.
____________________________________________

There is a force in life that determines some outcomes deemed “chance”. This force is something mathematicians may call “probability” or what the common man would call “randomness”. And although I would be inclined to agree that it is random, I would much rather give reason to it all – to remove the random from randomness.

I would do this a three pronged argument for varying world views. The first of which would be a religious framework. For this, I would propose that an Omnipotent God and free will would be incompatible. This stems from the argument that God, knowing all things to come, could not be wrong about what was to come. This means that when the act that was foreknown comes and is done it must be in adherence with what the God knew. Since God created all things and knew the steps His creation would take dependent upon His own actions, any product of His creation must have been willed by the God. Anything seemingly random was definitely preordained and chosen.

The second would be the nonreligious framework. From this I would propose a similar argument as above, yet slightly different. Essentially it translates back to the theory that all humanity would act or react in a definite way given a particular set of stimuli. In simple terms, were there an entirely new planet which was the precise identical to our own, a being with the same experiences and stimuli would respond the exact same as someone on Earth. There is no randomness present because all actions occur solely because of a extremely particular set of circumstances (thus giving reason).

For the third (which works as a supplement to Prong 1 & 2), I propose that environment and science operates in very specific ways all based on a fundamental, factual basis that is immutable no matter the circumstances and that, whatever may seem to be random, has a definite scientific explanation no matter how complex or simplistic, thus giving a reason.

If we merge these arguments into one, it practically removes all possible “randomness” from the equation.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
You're technically right, I suppose. :p

I'm going to ignore your first argument as I don't agree that religion has any place in this debate whatsoever and I don't want to have (yet another) religion debate derail this thread. I've said everything I have to say regarding religion elsewhere on this forum, and it appears that the arguments of some random vicenarian on the internet aren't going to change anyone's mind on the subject. (surprise! /s)


The second would be the nonreligious framework. From this I would propose a similar argument as above, yet slightly different. Essentially it translates back to the theory that all humanity would act or react in a definite way given a particular set of stimuli. In simple terms, were there an entirely new planet which was the precise identical to our own, a being with the same experiences and stimuli would respond the exact same as someone on Earth. There is no randomness present because all actions occur solely because of a extremely particular set of circumstances (thus giving reason).
The problem is that randomness is nothing more than a concept, a human invention. It doesn't mean much more than the lack of a predictability or pattern in a system. So yeah, you're PROBABLY (hehe) right that if it was somehow possible to counter in the countless factors of existence, and analyse this immeasurably large dataset, you would be able to exactly predict all future events and subsequently transcend randomness... But this is NOT possible. Therefore, for as long as we are unable to complete this nigh-impossible task, randomness will, for all intents and purposes, still exist.



For the third (which works as a supplement to Prong 1 & 2), I propose that environment and science operates in very specific ways all based on a fundamental, factual basis that is immutable no matter the circumstances and that, whatever may seem to be random, has a definite scientific explanation no matter how complex or simplistic, thus giving a reason.
This is most likely true in the ''classical'' sciences, as we can calculate the fundamentals of the universe with insane precision. However, in ''modern'' (think quantum research) this doesn't quite hold up, we can't quite wrap our heads around this yet and it might actually be possible that true randomness does exist! But this field is very young, of course, so who knows what the future will bring. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top