Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

[acbytesla]

ftfy.

No, you didn't. "Random" by Its own definition means made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.

So something "not random" means made, done, happening, or chosen with method or conscious decision.

You can't prove ID so you demand that science prove there isn't an intelligence behind the natural forces.

It is in essence, a sly subversion of the burden of proof.

 

[psionl0]

No, you didn't.

Yes I did.

I never said that "true" randomness doesn't exist. Similarly I didn't demand that anybody prove that it exists.*

You are just insisting otherwise because otherwise you can't fault what I actually posted.

* I won't repeat what I actually posted since you will refuse to read it or claim (without evidence) that I posted something different.

 

[arthwollipot]

Why not?

Because not everything must be either random or deterministic with no third (or fourth, or fifth) possibility.

 

[psionl0]

Because not everything must be either random or deterministic with no third (or fourth, or fifth) possibility.

So what is this third (or fourth, or fifth) possiblity?

 

[sphenisc]

ftfy.

I don't understand this mentality of attributing words to me that I didn't post just so that you can disagree with me.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-psychology-behind-the-straw-man-fallacy

 

[arthwollipot]

So what is this third (or fourth, or fifth) possiblity?

As I said before, something that is neither deterministic nor random.

The course of a river is not strictly deterministic, nor is it strictly random. It is influenced by certain characteristics of the terrain, but the terrain does not determine the precise course of the river. The channel Practical Engineering on YouTube has several videos demonstrating this if you'd like to know more.

My point is that "deterministic" and "random" are not binary states. It's possible for something to be neither. Evolution is neither deterministic nor random.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Says the person who is trying to sound like they understand scientific theories, scientific facts, or the theory of evolution.

Uh yeah. My master's degree is in the SCIENCE of nursing.

Plus I've been on this forum for more than a decade. People know me...and they know you.

So you can't define "scientific fact". Got it.

That's not the definition of "look it up."

Addressing the arguer is much easier than analyzing the flaws in their argument.


That's two statements I made that are pro-evolution which you disagree with. You appear to be arguing that either you believe that evolution is not a good scientific theory or you think that evolutionary algorithms are not used in computer aided designs.


That's the third time you have disagreed with evolutionary theory in the one post.

You are not the first poster who has been prepared to deny everything they have believed in the past just to disagree with me.

Wow, that's getting out there.

Again, "pro evolution" is not the answer to, "Just name the principles, thank you. Or tell us specifically what these principles are when it comes to evolution theory. You cannot hoodwink anyone here."

You are welcome to try again but I'm out of patience. I have enough on my plate fighting the folks who can't debate the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic without invoking insulting the arguer.

 

[Leumas]

Yes I did.

I never said that "true" randomness doesn't exist. Similarly I didn't demand that anybody prove that it exists....

So you deny it exists but then you say you did not say it doesn't exist???



1984 Double Speak

Doublethink is a term from George Orwell's 1949 dystopian novel, 1984, which refers to the mental ability of believing two contradictory ideas at the same time for the purpose of rending critical thinking impossible

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

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

It provides the mathematical and later experiments the empirical evidence of the underpinnings behind what you consider are "assumptions".

So how does it prove that randomness is an actual thing? Is it just because the formulas predict behaviour that you conclude that randomness is real?

That's the problem. There is no evidence that "underlying randomness" exists - much less that it controls the universe.

We use statistical formulae in QM much like we do with coin tosses but that only assumes that randomness exists. It doesn't prove that randomness exists.

We can't predict the outcome, yet we know the outcome follows simple statistical distribution, and it follows it as precise as we can measure it.
If that's not random, I don't know what is.

Tossed coins also follow a "simple statistical distribution". Is it your argument that coin tosses are strictly random?

Yes, as long as you can't predict the outcome. That's what "random" means, isn't it ?

One possible definition of "random" is the inability to control or predict the outcome of an event.

However you are using the word in two different ways. In the case of a coin toss, it is simply a lack of information about the forces involved that causes us to use statistical models instead. But in the case of QM, your argument is that there are actual random forces operating at the quantum level.

Yes, I'd say there are random forces operating because we can't predict them in other ways than statistically.

We might not be able to measure these forces but that doesn't mean that there is some magical random force at play. It just means that (like the coin) we only have statistical methods to analyze the system.

Sounds more like the distinction between existential and practical to me.

Whether or not randomness can actually exist if one were effectively omniscient, that we are not even remotely close leaves a lot of wiggle room to call events that we are unable to determine the outcome of in advance with sufficient certainty "random."

The problem is that there are two definitions of "random" that are being used interchangeably.

There is the "pseudo" random which is not really random but because we don't have instruments that can measure all of the forces accurately enough, we assume "randomness" so that we can make computations.

Then there is the "true" random where the forces are not only immeasurable, but even if we could measure them, we would get a different result every time. Some people say that QM is about "truly random" forces but I have not seen a proof of this.

• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13961874#post13961874
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13960706#post13960706
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13960984#post13960984
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13960988#post13960988
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13961708#post13961708
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13961714#post13961714
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13961908#post13961908
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13963530#post13963530
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13963812#post13963812
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13964196#post13964196
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13964409#post13964409
• etc.
• etc.
• etc.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So what is this third (or fourth, or fifth) possiblity?

Nobody is falling for your "Geee Davey, could it be.... GOD?" setup there dude.

 

[acbytesla]

As I said before, something that is neither deterministic nor random.

The course of a river is not strictly deterministic, nor is it strictly random. It is influenced by certain characteristics of the terrain, but the terrain does not determine the precise course of the river. The channel Practical Engineering on YouTube has several videos demonstrating this if you'd like to know more.

My point is that "deterministic" and "random" are not binary states. It's possible for something to be neither. Evolution is neither deterministic nor random.

This gets down to definitions. There are multiple definitions for the term "random." "Random" is defined in many dictionaries as made with conscious thought. If you use this definition, there has to be a god involved. However, another common usage is unpredictable. No unproven god is necessary. The word "deterministic" has the same problem.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I feel like we're doing the "Free Will" thing again.

What's the difference between a random universe and a non-random one that isn't just a definitional difference?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Accuracy of Half-life

As can be seen from Figure 1a, for the majority of the plotted isotopes (94 out of 120) the half-life is known with less than 5% uncertainty.

Do you know what 1% UNCERTAINTY means? Yes it means it is not ******* deterministic.

No, it doesn't, and you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. 1% uncertainty means that the measurement of the half-life has not been carried out to a better precision than 1%, NOT that the half-life varies non-deterministically by 1%. It's a comment on what science has so far measured, not how radioactive decay occurs.

That's not to say that the existence of a well-defined half-life for a sufficiently large collection of nuclei, although the decay time of a single nucleus cannot be predicted, is in any sense related to any hypothesis about whether there is or is not a god. But if you're going to argue for atheism and against religion, spouting nonsense like this does nothing but harm your credibility.

Dave

 

[acbytesla]

I feel like we're doing the "Free Will" thing again.

What's the difference between a random universe and a non-random one that isn't just a definitional difference?

You can't have a reasonable discussion about anything without agreeing on the terms.

Usually, this isn't a problem. But if the word means something very different to the parties then you are at an impasse.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You can't have a reasonable discussion about anything without agreeing on the terms.

You also can't have one over a distinction with no difference.

 

[acbytesla]

You also can't have one over a distinction with no difference.

Sure. But we are talking about the words random and deterministic. There is a distinct difference if one of us is using the definition that includes a conscious choice and the other is defining them as only predictable/unpredictable.

An individual atom decays unpredictably. Yet we can predict the decay of a large set of atoms. A single coin toss produces an unpredictable result. But we can predict the approximate results of ten thousand coin tosses. Now, is this random?

 

[Thermal]

I feel like we're doing the "Free Will" thing again.

What's the difference between a random universe and a non-random one that isn't just a definitional difference?

A true understanding of the nature of reality.

If this is not important to you, as you seem to suggest, you might as well believe in God. If it is important to you, the truth matters.

 

[Leumas]

I feel like we're doing the "Free Will" thing again.

What's the difference between a random universe and a non-random one that isn't just a definitional difference?

For the incessant indefatigable wishers and peddlers for God... the difference is God.... yet another gap.

[imgw=300]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/5128263e2c74e1b074.jpg[/imgw]​

 

[Leumas]

You can't have a reasonable discussion about anything without agreeing on the terms.

And that is why the wily god-hawkers deploy all sorts of sleight of tongue and words legerdemain and semantics chicanery and start screeching things like CONTEXT!!! and TRANSLATION!! and PALEO-CULTURAL-SETTINGS!!! and then finally resort to esoteric and ethereal nebulous descriptions of the god they are peddling.

But my favorite shenanigan is when they equivocate science with religion and atheism with faith and skepticism with closed-mindedness and start questioning KNOWLEDGE altogether.




.

 

[Leumas]

Sure. But we are talking about the words random and deterministic. There is a distinct difference if one of us is using the definition that includes a conscious choice and the other is defining them as only predictable/unpredictable.

An individual atom decays unpredictably. Yet we can predict the decay of a large set of atoms. A single coin toss produces an unpredictable result. But we can predict the approximate results of ten thousand coin tosses. Now, is this random?

Indeterminism

Indeterminism is the idea that events (or certain events, or events of certain types) are not caused, or do not cause deterministically.

It is the opposite of determinism and related to chance. It is highly relevant to the philosophical problem of free will, particularly in the form of libertarianism. In science, most specifically quantum theory in physics, indeterminism is the belief that no event is certain and the entire outcome of anything is probabilistic. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the "Born rule", proposed by Max Born, are often starting points in support of the indeterministic nature of the universe. Indeterminism is also asserted by Sir Arthur Eddington, and Murray Gell-Mann. Indeterminism has been promoted by the French biologist Jacques Monod's essay "Chance and Necessity". The physicist-chemist Ilya Prigogine argued for indeterminism in complex systems.
....
Yet some philosophers have argued that indeterminism and unpredictability are synonymous.

And mind you... determinism itself is a philosophical navel gazing thought experiment also... done by people centuries ago when they did not have much science... and never did any science... and just COINED the conjecture.... so it is an unproven conjecture.

Determinism

Determinism is a philosophical view, where all events are determined completely by previously existing causes. Deterministic theories throughout the history of philosophy have developed from diverse and sometimes overlapping motives and considerations. The opposite of determinism is some kind of indeterminism (otherwise called nondeterminism) or randomness. Determinism is often contrasted with free will, although some philosophers claim that the two are compatible

 

[acbytesla]

Indeterminism

And mind you... determinism itself is a philosophical navel gazing thought experiment also... done by people centuries ago when they did not have much science... and never did any science... and just COINED the conjecture.... so it is an unproven conjecture.

Determinism

Sadly, there is a difference between definitions used in science and philosophy and those used colloquially. Whereas in science, precision in language is demanded, but in everyday use people are much looser.

I mean after all, it's just a theory.