Love is a better term than most !
Epistimec terms are born out of response. A rejection response to the idea of ID. A reason remains to be found. That things happened by chance works rather handily, explanations easy to come by which require little thought.
The real problem is not that people have differing views but rather the assumptions they make. Assumptions made about people are trivial. The real errors are in the assumptions made about nature. So ingrained as to be believed as truth.
Random. probable, chance, cause, determined, predictable
These terms are Epistemic
They relate to how much information we have. They do not address the question and provide little insight. I can say in one breath that both determinism and randomness are wrong because they are the wrong terms to describe nature.
But being able to say it doesn't mean there is any sense in it. Before the 20th century, it was not known that the Universe was not deterministic, and the deterministic models of nature had been tremendously successful (notably Newton's theory of gravitation and Maxwell's unifying theory of electrodynamics).
Since the early 20th century, a new deterministic model - general relativity - has replaced Newton's version for greatest precision and generality (Newton's model is still very useful for most purposes) , but no deterministic model can ever explain quantum behaviour. This is an objective discovery, with high, persistent confidence, that randomness is a verified characteristic of natural behaviour.
You still don't believe that, but that is likely because you do not understand the reasoning that led to that scientific conclusion.
its obvious that you dont understand him. three fingers pointing back at you..
...mines not. it's straight up.
Elroch has extensively posted his world view. Everything is made of atoms, simply arranged differently. Everything that has happened is the result of the BB a random event. In fact his math provides conclusively multiple universes exist covering all possibility of random chance. The reasoning being ID does not exist. This polar opposite view is seen as the only other choice of possible reason to explain Origin.
People get waist deep in the mud,all bogged down in their definitions, thinking they are descriptive of reality. Label tape as duct tape and people buy it to repair ducts. Wrong. Its never used by professionals.
These terms are Epistemic
They relate to how much information we have. They do not address the question and provide little insight.
But they're terms we use to communicate with each other. The words themselves can't provide insight into what they're supposed to mean.
I can say in one breath that both determinism and randomness are wrong because they are the wrong terms to describe nature.
Oh for Heaven's sake, they're words we use to refer to concepts about nature and without such concepts we couldn't discuss it.
But being able to say it doesn't mean there is any sense in it. Before the 20th century, it was not known that the Universe was not deterministic, and the deterministic models of nature had been tremendously successful (notably Newton's theory of gravitation and Maxwell's unifying theory of electrodynamics).>>>
I have to call you out there, Elroch. It certainly was known that the universe isn't deterministic, because there was a clear and definite dualism between the aspects of the universe considered to be deterministic and things like free will, which were completely accepted, and of course, God's will, which was seen as a free will in a larger sense. Yet all these things were accepted as real.
Since the early 20th century, a new deterministic model - general relativity - has replaced Newton's version for greatest precision and generality (Newton's model is still very useful for most purposes) , but no deterministic model can ever explain quantum behaviour. This is an objective discovery, with high, persistent confidence, that randomness is a verified characteristic of natural behaviour.
You still don't believe that, but that is likely because you do not understand the reasoning that led to that scientific conclusion.>>>
That's correct, but it's more than that. It's a kind of retreat into mysticism. It's happened in this thread, in front of our eyes. I don't mean a positive mysticism either. It's an obscurantist mysticism that attacks certainty and understanding wherever they are found. It isn't good. But then, too many people have used the concepts of certainty and understanding to attack others with. The result is an unhealthy polarisation. We used to look to traditional and old cultures for examples of the damage that superstition can do but now, many of the societies that were still "traditional" 75 years ago have altered and can live with the dualism or "dissonance" between the old and the new. To find superstition and blind credulity we can now go to the American Midwest.
Love is a better term than most !
Epistimec terms are born out of response. A rejection response to the idea of ID. A reason remains to be found. That things happened by chance works rather handily, explanations easy to come by which require little thought.
The real problem is not that people have differing views but rather the assumptions they make. Assumptions made about people are trivial. The real errors are in the assumptions made about nature. So ingrained as to be believed as truth.
This is an example of the false accusations and deliberate polarisation that you indulge in. You imagine that all scientists think that things happened by chance ... the universe and all its contents are the result of chance. You take refuge behind the barricade provided by our inability to use the most fundamental arguments because they're deemed "off limits" in public debate here.
Another thing is that you think in the most unhealthily divisive manner. Anyone who meets with your disapproval is characterised as "following science" and "trite". And you're managing to con some people who ARE innocent. In my opinion at least, while others take you seriously, they enable you to prevent this discussion from moving forward as it should. You will probably never learn. I was going to write more but on second thoughts we'll leave out WHY you'll never learn but the inconsistencies in what you're saying to us show it for what it is, mush. 
opti, i hope you're being humorous.. lol cause your whole #73 look like a blend of assumptions and accusations 
These terms are Epistemic
They relate to how much information we have. They do not address the question and provide little insight.
But they're terms we use to communicate with each other. The words themselves can't provide insight into what they're supposed to mean.
I can say in one breath that both determinism and randomness are wrong because they are the wrong terms to describe nature.
Oh for Heaven's sake, they're words we use to refer to concepts about nature and without such concepts we couldn't discuss it.
But being able to say it doesn't mean there is any sense in it. Before the 20th century, it was not known that the Universe was not deterministic, and the deterministic models of nature had been tremendously successful (notably Newton's theory of gravitation and Maxwell's unifying theory of electrodynamics).>>>
I have to call you out there, Elroch. It certainly was known that the universe isn't deterministic, because there was a clear and definite dualism between the aspects of the universe considered to be deterministic and things like free will, which were completely accepted, and of course, God's will, which was seen as a free will in a larger sense. Yet all these things were accepted as real.
That's a confusion between what I presume is some sort of old philosophical belief about free will and what could be scientifically concluded at the time. The word "known" is key.
In the 19th century, there was no correct objective reasoning that "free will" was not deterministic. If you doubt this, bear in mind that good pseudo-randomness can be practically indistinguishable from randomness.
The same is true today with a single exception: the recognition that the phenomenon referred to as "free will" is an extremely high level emergent behaviour of the physical brain which cannot be absolutely deterministic because the behaviour of the brain is emergent from the behaviour of entities (such as messenger molecules and the carriers of electric signals) which definitely behave non-deterministically.
Since the early 20th century, a new deterministic model - general relativity - has replaced Newton's version for greatest precision and generality (Newton's model is still very useful for most purposes) , but no deterministic model can ever explain quantum behaviour. This is an objective discovery, with high, persistent confidence, that randomness is a verified characteristic of natural behaviour.
You still don't believe that, but that is likely because you do not understand the reasoning that led to that scientific conclusion.>>>
That's correct, but it's more than that. It's a kind of retreat into mysticism. It's happened in this thread, in front of our eyes. I don't mean a positive mysticism either. It's an obscurantist mysticism that attacks certainty and understanding wherever they are found. It isn't good. But then, too many people have used the concepts of certainty and understanding to attack others with. The result is an unhealthy polarisation. We used to look to traditional and old cultures for examples of the damage that superstition can do but now, many of the societies that were still "traditional" 75 years ago have altered and can live with the dualism or "dissonance" between the old and the new. To find superstition and blind credulity we can now go to the American Midwest.
There is nothing "mystical" about quantum mechanics. It provides mathematical models which allow the calculation of the probabilities of observable results. Unambiguous and very well-tested.
It is however unintuitive, because the model cannot be viewed using the sort of intuitive models we use for everything we have evolved to deal with in the macroscopic world. That is as true today as it was in the 1920s.
elroch:"The same is true today with a single exception: the recognition that the phenomenon referred to as "free will" is an extremely high level emergent behaviour of the physical brain which cannot be absolutely deterministic because the behaviour of the brain is emergent from the behaviour of entities (such as messenger molecules and the carriers of electric signals) which definitely behave non-deterministically."
bravo! you just disapproved MW. maybe write a paper about it..
why? its getting better.. now hes wearing a neuroscientist hat. seem like he was googling antonio damasio.. : )
professor Colva Roney-Dougal of the University of St. Andrews says, “I can never prove that a sequence is random, I can only prove that it looks random and smells random.”
A big reminder
It’s all really rather obvious. True answers lie somewhere in between the extremes. Events are neither predetermined or random. These two abstract concepts, opposites, are not descriptive of nature, material or life form.
So people need not get all bent. What they are saying is most likely true - just not relevant. If it’s asked how to boil water being shown the fountain of youth is quite useless information.
The same is true today with a single exception: the recognition that the phenomenon referred to as "free will" is an extremely high level emergent behaviour of the physical brain which cannot be absolutely deterministic because the behaviour of the brain is emergent from the behaviour of entities (such as messenger molecules and the carriers of electric signals) which definitely behave non-deterministically. Elroch
Understood perfectly. If there ever was any doubt, this should clear up matters conclusively.
its a beautiful idea. antonio and hanna damasio both neuroscientists done excessive work on it. but its just nonsense to bring it as an argument against determinism. TR is pretty much a KOAN.
I could really learn to appreciate these messenger molecules. Haven’t seen one before but it makes sense with them acting randomly. Just hadn’t been my luck to bump into any 🧐
Is it being suggested neurons in the brain are randomly fired ?
its a beautiful idea. antonio and hanna damasio both neuroscientists done excessive work on it. but its just nonsense to bring it as an argument against determinism. TR is pretty much a KOAN.
If you are referring to what I wrote, there was no suggestion it was an argument against determinism. On the other hand Optimissed did make a claim that free will was a phenomenon that was used to prove non-determinism before the argument from physics (which I disputed).
"there's lotsa diff versions of 'luvfest' study" consummate love is far ahead of the competition.