Replies

me: it is inappropriate to say a phenomenon is random in nature

you: I think it's correct to say that "any extremely unusual or extraordinary thing or occurence" is a random phenomenon.

You are welcome to your views.

As for me, I shall continue to protest the misappropriation of words rooted in mathematics.

Alamo-Girl: It is inappropriate to say a phenomenon is random in nature.

OldNavyVet: I think it's correct to say that "any extremely unusual or extraordinary thing or occurence" is a random phenomenon.

OldNavyVet, by your statement here, aren't you already acknowledging what my dearest sister in Christ has already said — that since we cannot say what is random in a system when we don't know what the system is, that therefore the best we can say about the apparent randomness we "see" is that it involves something we cannot predict?

In short, the problem here is not mainly a problem of "random," it's a problem of unpredictability.

Or do you mean that simply because something is "extremely unusual or extraordinary" in our perceptual experience necessarily imbues that thing with the character of "randomness?" Does that mean the truth of reality has to be filtered through your idea of "truth" and perceptual experience in order to be validated? Is your own direct experience the reliable "measure" of things?

What does the word "random" — absent a context — mean anyway???

If we think something occurring in nature, as it appears to us as human "observers," is "an extremely unusual or extraordinary thing or occurrence," could this possibly mean that we don't understand the natural system — the context in which all phenomena occur — as well as we need to, if the truth of reality is our main concern?

And I do believe that was Alamo-Girl's main point. In short, if we don't know what the system "is," then how can we describe its parts and most importantly their behavior within the system (i.e., whether putatively "random" or "ordered" in some way)?

So can we take a stab on what "randomness" is in the first place? I mean, we're flinging that word around as if we knew what we were talking about!

Would a dictionary definition help all parties to this debate understand this at all?

I've consulted two dictionaries so far, the Oxford English, and the American Heritage. The only meaning in the Oxford dictionary relevant to our immediate concern is given as the third in a series of definitional items [the list of all potential meanings goes on over more than two columns in this work]: "...at great speed, without consideration, care, or control; hence a., with verbs of action or occurrence: As haphazard,, without aim, purpose, or fixed principle; heedlessly, carelessly, etc."

Question: Although you might prefer that the world be "purposeless," does it look "haphazard" to you, in its current state of development? Or at any prior state? Don't forget that evolution theory is logically premised on prior states that have already been formed....

Can we get any relief from this apparent quandary in the American Heritage dictionary? NO, methinks not: It says that "random" means (at item 1.): "Having no specific pattern or objective [i.e., no final cause!]; lacking causal relationships; haphazard."

Now OldNavyVet, you have to explain to me how an ordered, dynamic and persisting universe can be what it is as the mere product of haphazard and purposeless causes proceeding in a linear temporal chain over time....

So: Go for it! I'm all ears!!!

save