[Reeses]

I'll randomly latch on to one thing: randomness

This concept is a human abstract thinking tool to deal with the unknown or unknowable, but truly random forces don't actually exist, and therefore neither does free will. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle refers to our inability to observe a subatomic particle without disturbing it. If we *could* observe without disturbing then we could understand and calculate everything that happens using math. The true definition of random is what is currently unknown, and possibly unknowable to humans.

[Logophile]

. . . . but truly random forces don't actually exist, and therefore neither does free will. . . .

In what way does free will depend on the existence of randomness?

[traviskicks]

Two excerpts that deal with your point: In fact, it might be the case that the very predictability of a computer restricts it's ability to process the more abstract concepts that we Humans juggle daily. So a computer that needs to be told what to do, (in a specific manner via programming etc..) will be incapable, by definition, of abstract thought, Volition, and human type Consciousness, no matter how powerful it may be. And it will be impossible to construct a computer capable of fully simulating the abstract thinkings of a human being, without it being: 1. unpredictable 2. conscious in a human sense. 3. possessing Volition. From this analysis we see Zombies are impossible. This concept is reminiscent of the famous, Heisenberg 'uncertainty principal' regarding small particles; The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa. (26) As computers advance to the point where they are capable of human like functions they will becoming increasingly harder to control. It puts a bit of a limit on the power of conventional computing (as shown by the second Chart). Our discussions about predictability were very important in our analysis of computers, but have been since been somewhat ignored. Is this a mistake? The nature of randomness is as mysterious as Consciousness, Free Will, and God, and just as neglected by scientific study. (60), (61) Many of these mysterious entities seem correlated and linked together. Predetermination is a much simpler and logical concept to accept then any attained by delving into the instable nature of randomness. Is all randomness caused by Free Will, or elements thereof? In other words, might the same physical interactions that give rise to Consciousness, give rise to randomness? btw, an interesting book on this sort of thing is Wolfrom's 'A New Kind of Science'.

[beavus]

Randomness is a well defined concept. The problem is that one literally can never tell if a deterministic pattern won't someday be identified in some observed phenomena that currently seem random, like radioactive decay.

So, we can define random mathematically, but the most we can say about observations is that they seem random.