Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )

...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.

opti, i hope you're being humorous.. lol cause your whole #73 look like a blend of assumptions and accusations

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..

A random attack by the Colored Crayons !

outta here. 

why? its getting better.. now hes wearing a neuroscientist hat.  seem like he was googling antonio damasio.. : )

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 ?

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).

We agree that MWI is a valid interpretation of quantum mechanics.

However, you have forgotten that I pointed out that MWI does not permit prediction of random events in our Universe. This is the randomness that matters to science (which is all about real observations in the real Universe). Randomness is unpredictability. That's the definition.

To take the position that the inability to predict (i.e. randomness) we know exists can be ignored as "not true randomness" because one interpretation of QM involves deterministic evolution of an unobservable mathematical entity is just trying to define away reality.  It's like saying the deals in a game of cards are not random because you can imagine all the other deals taking place. Would that make any sense? You also ignore the fact that the application of the MWI to the real world also involves a second random part - the continual random selection of the branch that we see. 

In truth the entire basis of your dispute appears to be your attachment to a bad (implicit) definition. The contrast is that the viewpoint I have presented says a lot about how the real world behaves and the limits of what can be deduced. Your implicit definition throws no light on reality (and appears only to be useful to ignore the randomness in the real world).

[For convenience I will also point out here that @MustangMate inexcusably misrepresented me by claiming I believed there was a proof that alternative Universes exist. It would be ridiculous to do so, since all other interpretations of QM are exactly as consistent with experiment]

It is definitely a fact that the firing of neurons is a stochastic process.

To be more specific, the probability of a neuron firing depends on the activity of the inputs to that neuron, but there remains some randomness. If this is not obvious, bear in mind that firing is partly the result of the motion of molecules which move according to Brownian motion. This is random (it comes down to quantum mechanical randomness in the motion and interaction of molecules).

you see elroch.. either you dont understand the topic. or you being manipulative about it.

both options are odd.. which one is it?

"It's funny really, making a parallel commentary alongside two "sides" who ought to know by now that their endless discussions are completely futile"

it is funny. but there's no argument here. i understand him perfectly, but i dont think that you do, because i understand most of you too, and its easy to see the differences.

in fact, this mess could be easily cleared up if not for the emotional.. 

where does he stand on the topic then? or any of the others for this matter.. did you ever stop and listen?