compatibilism

Originally posted by twhitehead
Eventually he will realise that for the last few pages you have been using some words in a non-standard way but not letting on to him that you are doing so, thus causing totally unnecessary miscommunication. Troll much?

Show me.

Originally posted by apathist
Show me.

Show you what? Did you not understand my post?
You are using 'random' in a nonstandard way and humy clearly doesn't realise that so the two of you are endlessly talking past each other.
I know that you know that you are doing so because I have pointed it out to you many times.
So either you are trolling humy, or you have some other reason for deliberately wanting to cause confusion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are using 'random' in a nonstandard way and humy clearly doesn't realise that.

apathist

I should check this;
How would YOU personally define 'random'?

I would personally define "random" as something along the lines of;

"Involving more than one possible outcome that are such that we have no practical means of predicting with absolute certainty which will occur so the best we can do is to is think in terms of the probability of each occurring where 'probability' here is defined as, given whatever relevant limited knowledge and limited data you personally have, the most rationally-based degree of certainty you can possibly have of the given considered outcome occurring"

Is the above definition exactly what you mean by 'random' and, if not, exactly where and exactly in what way does it differ?
Note how my above definition doesn't involve anything to do with 'causeless' nor 'cause' nor 'truly random' nor 'pseudo-random' nor 'not determined' nor 'determined'.



ANYONE;

Do you think my above definition of 'random' is a good one? Or a bad one?
Can you show me one you think is better? -I would really like to see any better one + alternative options.

Originally posted by humy...
"Involving more than one possible outcome that are such that we have no practical means of predicting with absolute certainty which will occur so the best we can do is to is think in terms of the probability of each occurring where 'probability' here is defined as, given whatever relevant limited knowledge and limited data you personally ha ...[text shortened]... ly-based[/i] degree of certainty you can possibly have of the given considered outcome occurring"...

Random means determinism, per humy.

Some of us have moved past that.

What if the world doesn't adhere to determinism? How would you know, what would you look for. Do you really think your actions were pre-ordained at the dawn of time?

Originally posted by apathist
Random means determinism,

what?
Why are you suddenly speaking gibberish again?
Clearly wildly by far random does NOT means determinism.
+ Just for once in your life put some mental effort into thinking; trying to define one word with another just isn't good enough; ELABORATE.

Originally posted by apathist
What if the world doesn't adhere to determinism? How would you know,

in that situation, you couldn't ever know. That is because in that situation you can never prove there are NO unknown hidden causes behind any apparently random outcome thus that possibility can never be ruled out. So we will be forever stuck with 'don't know'. As we sometimes implied in our previous posts, this 'don't know' is the known current position of modern science.
What of it?

Originally posted by humy
I should check this;
How would YOU personally define 'random'?

I would personally define "random" as something along the lines of;

"Involving more than one possible outcome that are such that we have no practical means of predicting with absolute certainty which will occur so the best we can do is to is think in terms of the probability of eac ...[text shortened]... ow me one you think is better? -I would really like to see any better one + alternative options.[/b]

I appreciate you last sentence, btw.

But your definition went out of its way to say the result was per determinism.

What if reality wasn't slave to classic man? I didn't invent this, and kinda weird it is news to you.

Originally posted by apathist

your definition went out of its way to say the result was per determinism.

No, it CLEARLY doesn't. WHICH part of it? HOW so? Did you actually READ it? if so, What is wrong with your reading? Or is there something wrong with your comprehension?

And will you ever answer, WITHOUT resorting to complete gibberish, the question of how would you define 'random'?

Originally posted by apathist
What if reality wasn't slave to classic man? I didn't invent this, and kinda weird it is news to you.

what do you mean by "classic man"? I googled it and it isn't found in any normal English dictionary nor scientific dictionary I could find.