United Muscovite Nations wrote:
I'm not really convinced. For it to be truly random, there would have to be no variables which determine it. Moreover, there's still no observation of randomness, because, as said before, there's nothing to compare the outcome to. It still seems to be stuck on mistaking the inability to predict and outcome for randomness.
No, the point is precisely that there are no variables which determine it. There can't be any non-hidden variables (because we'd see them), there can't be any non-local variables (because relativity works), and there can't be any local hidden variables (by Bell's experiment). Thus, there are no variables which determine it, so it is random.
United Muscovite Nations wrote:But even if Quantum Physics is able to observe randomness, that doesn't mean that everyday events like coin-flips, card shuffles, or even macro-scale events like evolution by natural selection, are random. I'm not even using this as an argument for a God, I'm just arguing for a more deterministic view of the universe.
Macro-scale events are just accumulations of micro-scale events. Those micro-scale events being random implies that their accumulations are also random.
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:United Muscovite Nations, perhaps you could elaborate on the leap from effective randomness to “God did it”?
Also, I find your understanding of the uncertainty principle to be wanting. While we do not understand wave-particle duality, it is certainly not the case that there is a “definite” position for those particles. Experiments have confirmed as such.
Why would I elaborate on a position that I haven't argued for?
If the particles do not have a position,how do they exist?
Because they aren't really particles except when you look at them. They really are, in a fundamental sense, probability distributions (or field perturbations, if you prefer that terminology). "Particle" is just what we call a probability distribution that's highly concentrated in a small volume of space.
As far as the uncertainty principle goes, it really is about the fundamental nature of things, not about measurement: if you pin down the position of a particle more accurately, its momentum becomes more unpredictable.
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:Your epistemological beliefs, then, are incorrect. Statistics is the means by which we measure random phenomena. The mathematics and philosophy behind it are both well-understood and have equipped us with the tools to:
-Produce scientific studies
-Find correlations
-Understand the rates at which natural phenomena occur and for what reasons
I don't think the phenomenon are truly random. All events are caused by other events, which must surely mean that even the outcomes of supposedly random phenomenon are determined by the last sequence in a course of events. For a small example, we could say that the face of a dice that will end up is determined by its velocity and direction when tossed from a person's hand. For another example, we could say (perhaps, correct me if I'm wrong) that the naturally occurring mutations in an organism are caused by defects in the process of meiosis (or any other cause), and as such the likelihood of the outcome is, due to the lack of other possible outcomes.
The bold is something that you are assuming with precisely no evidence, and indeed in contradiction to the entirety of the single best-tested theory in science.
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:Except that’s not always the case. For example, there is such a thing as the spontaneous appearance of bosons and antibosons in vacuum. That is not precipitated by anything that is inherently causal other than random energy peaks.
That may be random, but what are the energy peaks caused by?
Nothing. That's the point.
Your position appears to be assuming determinism as an axiom, then asking "how can stuff be random?" That is: you're going about it entirely and completely backwards.
