Free will and determinism

[psionl0]

Yours is a false assertion that there is nothing other than pseudo-randomness and that there is no randomness at all.

You keep repeating this lie. What part of the word "IF" don't you understand?

 

[Leumas]

You keep repeating this lie. What part of the word "IF" don't you understand?

The lie is the assertion that it is a lie... as evinced by your very own words...

...Are you denying that randomness has been proven true?
...

Of course. It is just assumed in the absence of other information.

And you still have not

Define mutation!!

Define pseudo-random!!!

Define random!!!

And if you cannot tell IF randomness is true.... then your assertion that it is only pseudo-randomness is an Fallacious Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.




.

 

[steenkh]

I was going to detail all the fallacies in your post by responding to each part of it... but instead I am going to paraphrase it and the previous one ... in order for you to... perhaps ... hopefully... see the failures in logic in the statements.

I note that you did not argue your case that I am a closet theist because theists have used the same argument, but chose to be offended instead.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Define mutation!!

Define pseudo-random!!!

Define random!!!

Oh well, despite all your silly bravado, definitions are always constructive.

Mutation: A change in genetic code due to external stimuli or faults in transmission.

Pseudo-random: A data point or sequence of datapoints created by an algorithm that produces a repeatable, chaotic train of data.

Random: A sequence that cannot be predicted or repeated by any known method.

Hans

 

[suren]

Pseudo-random: A data point or sequence of datapoints created by an algorithm that produces a repeatable, chaotic train of data.
Random: A sequence that cannot be predicted or repeated by any known method.

In a case of a truly random process there would be no deterministic algorithm. By pseudo-random I don't imply that there is literally some algorithm written by an intelligent designer, but it's deterministically computable. We might just don't know the algorithm or there are hidden variables that are inaccessible to us.

But there is no way to verify if our universe is pseudo-random or truly random, so I guess it's more of a philosophical question than a scientific one.

 

[psionl0]

And if you cannot tell IF randomness is true.... then your assertion that it is only pseudo-randomness is an Fallacious Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

It is only "Fallacious Argumentum ad Ignorantiam" because you have lied about what I actually posted.

Just as a reminder: "IF the universe is deterministic THEN true randomness doesn't exist". And "true randomness" hasn't been proven to exist.

 

[MRC_Hans]

In a case of a truly random process there would be no deterministic algorithm.

Exactly.

By pseudo-random I don't imply that there is literally some algorithm written by an intelligent designer, but it's deterministically computable.

Although we mostly use the term in connection with computers, an algorithm can be any systematic function that produces a deterministic function, e.g. a mechanical clock.

We might just don't know the algorithm or there are hidden variables that are inaccessible to us.

In which case we usually refer to it as true random.

But there is no way to verify if our universe is pseudo-random or truly random, so I guess it's more of a philosophical question than a scientific one.

I agree. The recent discussion here came because Leumas claimed that a random process (in this case radioactive decay) is proof that randomness exists. Since our definition of 'random' is that the mechanism is unknown that would be a circular claim, and thus invalid.

.... Which means we should be able to move on to possible other discussions.

Hans

 

[psionl0]

In which case we usually refer to it as true random.

That could get confusing fast.

"Random" generally means unpredictable or uncontrollable. This is generally because we don't know the mechanism that generates the random event. If there is no such mechanism then we would call it "true random" but otherwise it is pseudo-random.

 

[MRC_Hans]

That could get confusing fast.

"Random" generally means unpredictable or uncontrollable. This is generally because we don't know the mechanism that generates the random event. If there is no such mechanism then we would call it "true random" but otherwise it is pseudo-random.

Perhaps. In everyday reference we will mostly just say random. After all, once the 'random' event has happened, there is no way to tell the difference.

The highlighted is contrary to normal use. "True random" is generally used when it is assumed there is no known mechanism. Such as in TRNG (True Random Number Generator).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator

Hans

 

[Leumas]

I agree. The recent discussion here came because Leumas claimed that a random process (in this case radioactive decay) is proof that randomness exists. Since our definition of 'random' is that the mechanism is unknown that would be a circular claim, and thus invalid.

Despite your erroneous and fallacious use of the circular reasoning fallacy.... no it would not ... by your own admission... in the post below... QED!!!

...
The highlighted is contrary to normal use. "True random" is generally used when it is assumed there is no known mechanism. Such as in TRNG (True Random Number Generator).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator

Here have a look...

True Random Number Generator (TRNG)

For truly random numbers, the computer must use some external physical variable that is unpredictable, such as radioactive decay of isotopes or airwave static, rather than by an algorithm. At the quantum level, subatomic particles have completely random behavior, making them ideal variables of an unpredictable system. Most higher end microcontrollers have TRNG sources, which wolfSSL can use as a direct random source or as a seed for our PRNG. Intel RDRAND, a silicon-based TRNG, is supported by wolfSSL.

Compare to this...

...
No... randomness is proven every time a ¹⁴C atom in all living things' bodies decays... it is just that some want to deny the fact...

And this is from your reference

In computing, a hardware random number generator (HRNG) or true random number generator (TRNG) is a device that generates random numbers from a physical process, rather than by means of an algorithm. Such devices are often based on microscopic phenomena that generate low-level, statistically random "noise" signals, such as thermal noise, the photoelectric effect, involving a beam splitter, and other quantum phenomena. These stochastic processes are, in theory, completely unpredictable for as long as an equation governing such phenomena is unknown or uncomputable.

Now compare it to this...

And that is the whole point of insisting that there isn't randomness and that the universe is deterministic... so as to leave a gap for the omniscient Jabberwocky to know where the vanishing Cheshire Cat went to.... even if we do not know where... the omniscient Jabberwocky assuredly cannot be befuddled by the mere "random" vanishings of a Cheshire cat... can he?

All one needs to see randomness that even an omniscient Jabberwocky cannot ascertain for certain... is go to a Halloween Store... and buy one of those luminescent costumes and see it glow in the dark.... or... make a good hot cup of tea and drip a smidgen of milk in it and watch that... or turn the FM or AM radio set onto a channel that has no station on it and listen to that white noise... or wait for a tornado or hurricane or lightning and watch those... or get a good Geiger counter and listen to that... or go to the nearest whitewater river and sit at the bank and watch the water flow there... or go sunbathing and see if skin cancer will be the result or not.... etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Anyone who cannot see how this stuff is randomness that even an omniscient Jabberwocky cannot ascertain for certain.... is only refusing to see it.... that's all.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Now compare it to this...

I think I made my position quite clear. Take it or leave it, I care not.

Hans

 

[Leumas]

In a case of a truly random process there would be no deterministic algorithm. By pseudo-random I don't imply that there is literally some algorithm written by an intelligent designer, but it's deterministically computable. We might just don't know the algorithm or there are hidden variables that are inaccessible to us.

But there is no way to verify if our universe is pseudo-random or truly random, so I guess it's more of a philosophical question than a scientific one.

You have not defined Evolution yet...

Is it pseudo-random or "random" or truly random??

In a case of a truly random process there would be no deterministic algorithm. By pseudo-random I don't imply that there is literally some algorithm written by an intelligent designer, but it's deterministically computable.

What if it is not??? like say physical processes like thermal noise or the photoelectric effect, radioactive decay of isotopes or airwave static or quantum level subatomic particles... or genetic mutation???

We might just don't know the algorithm or there are hidden variables that are inaccessible to us.

This is akin to determinism of the gaps....

But there is no way to verify if our universe is pseudo-random or truly random, so I guess it's more of a philosophical question than a scientific one.

Yes there is.... the "philosophical question" has been definitively answered... much like a lot of the centuries old naval gazing questions that SCIENCE has answered... I suggest you read up a bit more on the sciences involved (e.g. evolution).

ETA: also read this post.

 

[Leumas]

I think I made my position quite clear. Take it or leave it, I care not.

Yes you certainly did... and it is very clearly wrong... as evinced by FACTS that you yourself cited.... thanks for doing that!!

 

[psionl0]

The highlighted is contrary to normal use. "True random" is generally used when it is assumed there is no known mechanism. Such as in TRNG (True Random Number Generator).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator

Hans

TRNG is used when the RNG isn't a PRNG ie not from a deterministic algorithm but from an external noise source. It is not the same as saying that the external noise source is "truly" random.

 

[Leumas]

TRNG is used when the RNG isn't a PRNG ie not from a deterministic algorithm but from an external noise source. It is not the same as saying that the external noise source is "truly" random.

Nope...

...
Are you emotionally attached to [no] randomness somehow?

Oh well, despite all your silly bravado, ....

You obviously haven't studied the fields of knowledge involved. You are just making stuff up.

You are quite simply and directly wrong about this....

...You clearly don't understand... QM in general.

 

[psionl0]

Nope...

I don't know how you think that these quotes criticizing you have anything to say about TRNGs but your thought processes are rather mysterious anyway.

 

[MRC_Hans]

TRNG is used when the RNG isn't a PRNG ie not from a deterministic algorithm but from an external noise source. It is not the same as saying that the external noise source is "truly" random.

We agree.

Hans

 

[psionl0]

We agree.

Hans

See what I mean about confusing?

TRNG vs PRNG may be a useful dichotomy when it comes to computer generated random numbers but when you claimed that "True random" is generally used when it is assumed there is no known mechanism I was unaware that you meant to limit this to computers.

Lack of knowledge (of a random event mechanism) is not the same as knowledge of lack.

 

[Leumas]

...
Lack of knowledge (of a random event mechanism) is not the same as knowledge of lack.

And since you have no knowledge of the lack of knowledge or not... then it is an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam to incessantly and continuously deny what you do not know if you even are able to know.

Especially when you also already have lack of knowledge which is what is needed to make randomness in the first place.

... A random sequence of events, symbols or steps often has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination....

You persistently and indefatigably deny that it is random despite that you lack knowledge and you acknowledge this lack of knowledge of whether there is knowledge or not... DOUBLY LACKING knowledge whatsoever... so it is doubly random.

Unless you are contending that there is someone or something that is able to know... then it is not known by you or anything that exists....

Get that... it is not known by anything... which is by definition what RANDOM means... get that...

... A random sequence of events, symbols or steps often has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination....

Any argument from lacking knowledge and even lacking knowledge of whether it is possible to know or not is nothing but absurd Argumenta ad Ignorantiam to incessantly and continuously deny what you do not know if you are even able to know.

And since no one and nothing knows then it is random... not pseudo-random and definitively not "random"... rather irrefragably TRUELY RANDOM.

 

[psionl0]

[IMGW=200]https://jacobsmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/bs-meter.jpg[/IMGW]