[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

However, I object to the casual use of the word “random” unqualified by scientists when what they really mean is “unpredictable.”

A person cannot say something is random in the system when he doesn’t know what the system “is.”

The full extent of physical reality is both unknown and unknowable (dimensionality.) We, as observers, are also part of what is being observed – we cannot see “all that there is” all at once. We can never assure that something which we observe as “random” – and for which stochastic methods work – is in fact, a uniform distribution.

Wolfram on Random Numbers

A random number is a number chosen as if by chance from some specified distribution such that selection of a large set of these numbers reproduces the underlying distribution. Almost always, such numbers are also required to be independent, so that there are no correlations between successive numbers. Computer-generated random numbers are sometimes called pseudorandom numbers, while the term "random" is reserved for the output of unpredictable physical processes. When used without qualification, the word "random" usually means "random with a uniform distribution."

Scientists and mathematicians understand the actual meaning of the term – but when the word “random” is thrown out, unqualified, in casual conversation about science it causes many to believe it means a uniform distribution when it does not. It merely means the output of unpredictable physical processes.

Or to put it another way, the careless use of the term makes matters worse. It leaves many with the impression that whatever it is, is pure dumb, blind, happenstance with no first or final cause. No room for God there.

And pure, dumb, blind, happenstance truly is the worldview of Dawkins, Pinker, Singer, Lewontin et al who market atheism under the color of science. So for them, the obfuscation is an effective marketing tool. Therefore, I counter by stating:

A person cannot say something is random in the system when he doesn't know what the system "is."

[Alamo-Girl]

Oops, I forgot to give an example.

If one were to extract a series of numbers of the extension of pi, it would appear to be "random" when it is fact highly determined.

By knowing what the system "is" - the extension of pi - one also knows the extracted series of numbers is not "random" at all.

A "random" event in nature is like that. We don't know what the system "is." What we really mean is that part we are observing is "unpredictable."

[hosepipe]

[ A person cannot say something is random in the system when he doesn't know what the system "is." ]

Well Duuuugh.. LoL..

[Mrs. Don-o]

Interesting! Thank you, both of you! ( I think I understood about 85% of it, with gusts of up to 90 )...

:o)

[bezelbub]

A person cannot say something is random in the system when he doesn't know what the system "is."

As we never will know any system in full, the best approach for most practical reasons is to assume randomness - and let the philosophers quibble about the difference between randomness and unpredictability....