created by diogenesthehopeful on 09/09/2024 at 09:53 UTC
0 upvotes, 4 top-level comments (showing 4)
Ref:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chance-randomness/#CommThesRefi[1][2]
1: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chance-randomness/#CommThesRefi
2: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chance-randomness/#CommThesRefi
An outcome happens by chance iff, were the trial which generated that outcome repeated often enough under the same conditions, we would obtain a random sequence including the outcome (or of which the outcome is a subsequence).
I realize this is a thesis and not a definition of the word random but at the beginning of the exposition it offers the commonplace thesis:
Something is random iff it happens by chance.
I've been saying this but apparently it is not good enough for the SEP and the commonplace thesis needed to be refined (RCT)
So for those of you that think LFW is incoherent, here is your opportunity to make your case using the SEP if you can do it in a cogent way. Since determinism is dogmatic, this post isn't about you proving determinism is true without actually admitting that you are a determinist. It is more about your beef with LFW.
Comment by vkbd at 09/09/2024 at 18:03 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this SEP article is essentially saying that science can use mathematics to support random or non-random observations; but ultimately mathematics cannot prove randomness or non-randomness by observation alone. And you're implying that this makes a case for indeterminism and Libertarian Free Will.
I would say, sure why not. But I don't think this alone makes LFW any more convincing.
Like any other concepts, we cannot disprove them with absolute certainty using observation alone. We can't disprove the tooth fairy. We can't disprove Santa Claus. And we can't disprove LFW. No, we cannot disprove any of them. We accept they are unlikely, and move on.
Comment by spgrk at 09/09/2024 at 10:52 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
In the SEP article, what definition of randomness do you think is different to undetermined?
LFW is not necessarily incoherent, it is only incoherent if you say that free human actions are neither determined nor undetermined.
Comment by jk_pens at 15/09/2024 at 03:16 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Give me your definition of LFW, and I will gladly make a cogent argument that it is either (a) incoherent, or (b) not actually LFW.
Comment by mildmys at 09/09/2024 at 10:03 UTC
1 upvotes, 2 direct replies
were the trial which generated that outcome repeated often enough under the same conditions, we would obtain a random sequence
This is the same as the standard definition of random used here on this sub. just more words.
Random is: an outcome that could go otherwise if perfectly repeated.