The Metaphysical Possibility of Randomness

[AquinasD]

Before I begin our analysis of the concept of randomness and its metaphysical possibility, we must first come to terms with what randomness means.

When the term random is used to describe some event, this is in opposition to its being determined or even explainable in terms of what came before it. So randomness would cover any event for which the antecedent is allowed to have two or more consequents, where the occurrence of either over the other possible consequent is not explainable by the antecedent cause. Therefore, when we speak of randomness in the context of causation, we mean something like

randomness: when something occurs for no reason

Now for our question; is randomness metaphysically possible? Before I delve into the strictly metaphysical argument, I want to defuse a possible argument that comes from quantum mechanics. This argument states that randomness must be possible, for it is utilized in certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, viz. M-Theory and the Copenhagen interpretation.

However, I think what is important to note is that randomness is scientifically unfalsifiable. We must remember that science operates under a method that is of the form If x were true then we would see y under conditions z. Randomness is not observably distinguishable from events that occur in which we are simply unable to observe the antecedent causes of the consequent. If it is not observably distinguishable, then it is not scientifically unfalsifiable. This means that garnering support from science-qua-scientific-method in favor of the possibility of randomness is to beg the question. What is actually the case is that these interpretations of quantum mechanics are presenting a metaphysical explanation (more properly, non-explanation) for what happens, not a scientific one. This means that no substantial help will come from science in answering this question. It is a purely metaphysical exercise.

I think that randomness, defined like above (based on how it is typically used in the context of causality), is meaningless. What I mean is that the proposition Things can happen for no reason is void of semantic content. Let us break it down to see what it would mean, and in this way we will see that the only possible, and therefore necessarily true, proposition is that Things happen for a reason.

Causality is linked to being. If something were to cause another thing, then it must be the case that between objects they share an aspect in their forms that makes them capable of interacting directly with each other, and their respective forms will inform the ontology of the causation as it occurs. In other words, it is in the essence of (at least) two beings that determines how the inputs (the motion, or change, of the antecedent efficiently causal being) shall be, as it were, translated to outputs; a sort of instantaneous calculation is performed by both of the objects that yields its result.

To break this down concretely, take the event of a billiards ball striking another. We know that when one strikes the other, the other will be pushed off in the direction it is struck from. What causes just this type of event to occur, and none other, is the essences of the two billiards balls themselves, such that the firsts form informs the other of what it will do in reference to its own form (in this case, they both happen to be spherical).

Now what we must note is that, insofar as the beings involved determine what shall happen in any event, that definite beings give definite conclusions. It is the very definiteness of the beings that allows the transference of energy to occur as it does, for otherwise there must pertain an indefiniteness of just what occurs, for definition cannot follow from indefinition. But what occurs is, in fact, definite, and it must be definite, for otherwise it would not be. This is because any being that is at all a being must be a certain particular being, a definite being, for otherwise it should fail to be a being at all. But then, if there is no room for indefiniteness in a being, then we must conclude that there is no room for indefiniteness in cause.

Concretely, what we mean by this is that it cannot be a beings final cause that it will cause A or B, and that it causes either A or B shall be for no reason. It simply wouldnt mean anything to state that it is a things nature to not be naturally disposed towards one consequent over another under certain conditions; wed be saying its nature is to be without nature. But if a thing has a nature, it has a nature, and if a thing didnt have a nature, it wouldnt be a thing. Therefore, we must conclude that, if a being is a being, its efficient causes can only be of a particular and explainable sort. This precludes the metaphysical possibility of randomness, because randomness requires a being to not have a nature, which is a contradiction in terms. Thus I say randomness is meaningless.

*What is a nature? A nature is simply what it is in the being's being to do; or, what Aristotle calls "final cause."

That there are final causes in the world is not difficult to demonstrate. Typically, we like to describe complex processes in terms of what its constituent parts do. However, this mode of explanation falters when it comes to theoretical fundamental particles, which would have no constituent parts to explain their behavior. Yet these fundamental particles would have a definite range of behaviors, and while this behavior is informed by the effective environment of that particle, it remains the case that we can only explain the particle's normative tendency by positing that it is just the nature of the particle to do what it does, and that it has the nature to do what it does is not caused by any underlying constituent parts. In other words, final causes constitute a real aspect in nature.

A practical example of final cause is any given natural law. Take Boyle's law:

"For a fixed amount of an ideal gas kept at a fixed temperature, P [pressure] and V [volume] are inversely proportional (while one doubles, the other halves)."

What is being described here is the nature, of final cause, of gaseous matter. We would say it is just the nature of gas for its pressure and volume to be inversely proportional.

Just to show I'm not being illicit in my utilization of "natures" as an aspect of beings.

[sickles]

what I meant is that I did not make any bold new claim, contrary to the way you seemed to see my claims, that is you seemed to find intolerable that I dared to make claims without enough justification, while all I did was report the information on the scientific situation without bothering myself to give a "full proof" for the satisfaction of your lazy eyes.

Look. This is a debate website. If proof is demanded of you, you have to put up or shut up. Otherwise it isnt a debate, just your soapbox. Additionally, what I said is this " if you are saying that you know, and science knows, that reality is ultimately random , and that no other 'hidden determination' can be responsible, then those people and you are making a determination that has no basis in reason. It is the fallacy of appealing to your own authority. You cant know that there is no hidden determination, just as you cant say that all apples are red. 'Cause as soon as you do, some asshole is gonna hand you a yellow apple and you're F#%ed. Its just pure fallacy. Im sorry that me demanding your justification gives you the impression that I'm lazy. I work 68 hour work-weeks, sir. I will assume this is a fault in your judgement.

Sorry if my sentence was ambiguous. I did not mean that you made any bold new claim either. Rather, I'd say your claims are quite naive and outdated as compared to the current science, and your unability to consider the possibility that they may be so and that there are important things you need to update yourself to for being up to the debate (your a priori unquestionable confidence in the ultimateness of your ideas), is what is bold and finally wrong.

Well, if my claims are outdated, then from what date do they hail from? You must know at least that to judge my ideas relative to 'current science', as you judge it. You have yet to show me how I am 'finally wrong'. Lots of rhetoric. And unkindness. And hot air.

"I accept what science has discovered"
I already explained but you seem to have problem to get it, so I repeat:
You are doing the contrary of what you think you do.
In fact you do not accept what science has really discovered but only what you believe it did, because you have wrong beliefs about what science has or has not discovered.

You keep judging me, and yet no logic behind it. Why are you on a debate forum?

Well things are uneasy to explain because they are complicated and subtle (just like all science which requires important studies to be grasped) not just simplistically black or white.

I did not invite you to be my patron so kindly refrain from patronizing me.

What science has established is that the idea of a hidden determination between quantum randomness would be VERY far-fetched. There are some precise scientific reasons that show that this is far-fetched.
However I'm aware that this claim will make no sense to you because this report is just an approximation of some much more complicated stuff that cannot be easily summed up. And as an approximative claim (deprived of the effective complex contents it refers to) it seems to make no sense.

As Einstein said " If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

The point is just because things are not as simplistically black or white as would be convenient to sum up for an easy, unscientific discussion, does not mean the sort of total absence of any effective, important scientific findings supporting randomness, that you are assuming here all along.

And yet you have no proof or evidence to support your unscientific opinion. I call it unscientific because it has yet to be tested in a labratory setting, and probably never will as it is unfalsifiable. How can you test that reality is random or not random? You'd have to test for both to get a comprehensive enough data block to come to a probably conclusion. Even then probably not definitive. Though, I have been mistaken before.

Otherwise it would be easy to deny science while pretending to accept its findings, by claiming there is "no consensus" on anything just because you focus on a question that does not make meaningful sense and it is possible to either just ignore existing knowledge for pretending that this question makes more sense and remains unsettled, or find some implausible way of distorting the interpretation of observations to make them compatible with the distorted idea, such as to doubt the reality of global warming or of natural unguided evolution.

Yes, I find this the typical reaction from Muslim friends of mine. Even in fundamentalist christians to some extent. Saying evolution is just a theory, etc etc. I dont do this. I look at the ramifications of scientific discovery. I dont judge the discoveries themselves. Scientists find a gay gene? sweet. A man made a robot out of waterbottles and pvc pipes powered only by wind? F#&^$'n A. Scientists have definitively proven that reality is based on randomness and there is definitely no underlying causal factors. WAIT! I gotta problem. How can they know that last part? You say they know that last part, but how can they? explain that to me.

For example if you ask a biologist why he thinks that evolution happens naturally without divine guidance, first this question makes little sense to him because what he knows is thousands of particular observations of how things happen to be and how this is coherent with natural evolution. However he cannot specifically say that this shows absence of intelligent design because, for example, the idea of intelligent design requires to define some hierarchy of values, criteria how something can be considered better designed than by chance, and such criteria are lacking (the easy ones do not work but it is always possible to argue that God has other criteria that we cannot grasp).

Right, however the biologist would not be able to rule out intelligent design. The biologist doesnt take any case for intelligent design seriously. And RIGHTLY SO. He needs proof. Evidence. Something that can be reproduced. But again, the biologist cannot rule out intelligent design. In 200 years we might find some underlying causal phenomenon causing the patterns we see in nature. Some might call this god, others a peculiarity. For evidence that these patterns exists at all , see : Emergence, and Fibonacci Sequences, and Fractals. These underlying causal phenomenon might be responsible for the quantum strangeness we see. Its pure speculation , I know, but it just goes toward my point.

So sorry I deviate here from the subject, but I just mean that you need to learn more carefully of quantum physics if you wish to understand what I mean. And what you really need to be explained, cannot hold in just a few paragraphs.
It's about some diverse considerations on the properties of quantum systems and the mathematical form and properties of quantum theory. An important clue among that is the violation of the Bell inequalities. I guess you heard about these inequalities because they are well-known. However you seem to not have noticed the importance of those things.

"If Bell's reasoning is correct, then the experimental results appear to demonstrate that some quantum effects travel faster than light, and the class of tenable hidden variable theories are limited to the non-local variety. None of the tests of the theorem performed to date has fulfilled all of the requisite conditions implicit in the theorem, and the conditions Bell imposes on local hidden variable theories have been criticized as overly restrictive. Accordingly, experimental results to date cannot be regarded as conclusive proof of non-locality."

Indeed this line of reasoning should be considered suspect. Even if it is true, it cannot rule out non-locality.

But however scientifically solid and important, anyway it's easy for you to dismiss that by unfairly accusing scientists who express that, of only telling their philosophical interpretation away from scientific facts (or what you believe them to be).
And because what you are asking is a quite philosophical question that does not make much operational (verifiable) sense. Not that science has nothing to say about this as you wrongly assumed that it would be beyond its scope, but that there are good reasons for scientists to not focus on this precise question and dismiss it as less relevant, compared to the other more effective clues they have about how things work.

Philosophy is beyond the scope of science. You are wrong in that. Science is for scientists. After they take off the lab coat, they become philosophers. The philosophical opinion of scientists should have great weight in my opinion. But, they dont get the final say. The are fallable, as are the rest of us.

Scientific knowledge has no pity for the lazy-minded people who require the answers to their naively favorite questions (which they wrongly assume to be the most essential) to be convincingly explained in a few paragraphs without caring to learn the rest first.
Sorry.

Yea? Well, you're a patronizing bastard.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Moderator Intervention

sickles and spoirier both need to cool off. Attitudes and language are getting out of hand.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T remember?


Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[sickles]

Well.. I took it for a good while before i got mean. Thats all I got to say about it.