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 first’s 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 being’s final cause that it will cause A or B, and that it causes either A or B shall be for no reason. It simply wouldn’t mean anything to state that it is a thing’s nature to not be naturally disposed towards one consequent over another under certain conditions; we’d be saying it’s nature is to be without nature. But if a thing has a nature, it has a nature, and if a thing didn’t have a nature, it wouldn’t be a thing. Therefore, we must conclude that, if a being is a being, it’s 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.

[spoirier]

I'm not sure if AquinasD's assertion that randomness is unfalsifiable is entirely true.
Random events are known to, over large sample sizes, behave according to certain distributions(Gaussian, Possion, etc.).
If it were the case that certain events or interactions were not random, we would expect to see variance in physics(Specifically quantum mechanical) results occurring with only the uncertainty arising from the inability to obtain arbitrary precision, but this is not the case, and I don't think it's possible for a(At least simple) deterministic model to explain this.

This is precisely what I have proven here in more general and sophisticated terms: that AquinasD's assertion is blatantly false.

The remark that our universe follows quantum theory is misleading. Our universe follows both classical and quantum theories of physics. Both are correct.

Wrong. Indeed there are possible issues for which we can genuinely say that classical physics is correct. Namely, classical physics is correct as a good approximation for some wide range of phenomena where this approximation applies and quantum effects are unsignificant.
But not for the kind of issue we are discussing here, which is about how things are going on the deepest level to analyze its metaphysical status. For this, the deepest and most accurate established description of physics should be used (quantum physics), while mere approximations (classical physics) are obsolete and should be discarded.

Even if you choose to focus on the chaotic behavior of classical (macroscopic) systems, their very property of sensitivity to very small differences of initial conditions, drives the consequences of quantum fluctuations (random behavior) from their very small natural scales, to produce macroscopic effects.

I will say it again, in my opinion , there is no such thing as randomness.

This is your opinion. I know it. You don't need to repeat hundreds of times to explain that it is your opinion, because I could read it and take note note from the first time I read it, the fact this is your opinon. The problem is, the fact that it is your opinion, and that you repeat it so many times, does not make it an any more justified opinion.

The result is decided after all factors that influence the event are taken into account. This is base determinism. We cant predict which out of a group of electrons will move when stimulated? Obviously its random! How arrogant we are! It couldn't possibly be that there are forces at work that we cannot percieve or understand. It couldnt possibly be that we cannot yet fathom the mechanics of electrons, no. It must be random.

When you write "How arrogant we are !" do you include yourself in this list of arrogant people ? Indeed you are not making yourself the move which you call "arrogant". Therefore to be clearer you should rather have written "How more arrogant than myself they are !", shouldn't you ?

But you seem here to assume that when the community of physicists reaches a conclusion that does not agree with your beliefs then they must necessarily be idiots who never thought about what you are telling here and who just accepted without question the must absurd non-reasoning to support their conclusions. Therefore you can confidently take the most absurd non-reasoning you can how it is possible for an idiot to claim that something is random when it appears random, and assume without question that this must surely have been the reasoning they made.

Well, you just have no clue how physicists think and what drove them to their conclusion that there is fundamental randomness in physics.
Of course if your "analysis" of the situation and of what made them to conclude for randomness was indeed the situation of modern science, then almost everybody would have pointed out your argument, so that your position would have been adopted very quickly; probably right from the start already as Einstein tried to do it with the same argument you are making, but even if by any accident the founders of quantum physics were stupid enough to not think about it (ifever this theory could have been discovered by such idiots), then anyway it seems clear to me that such an unfounded consensus could not have been more stable (its half-life could not have been longer) than a tritium atom. Thus the persistence of this consensus should be telling: that they did find clues that you missed in support for their position.

Of course, what makes me say this, is also that I have some information on better arguments they could find to support the idea of fundamental randomness. Arguments which you don't seem to grasp (as you present things as if those arguments weren't there). (But I think this forum is the place to develop them because they'd be too long and hard and nothing new. For this you have to go and learn more about quantum physics, where it is taught)

In such conditions, I must conclude that the one arrogant person here is you, not they.

And I , hopefully, refuted your refutation above.

"Hopefully" you say ? Well, you are very hopeful indeed. The boldness of your faith may be considered very pious and admirable in Jesus'eyes. However, I'm sorry to say that any respect to the role of the Holy Spirit supporting your confidence here is irrelevant. Well I know you see it as a matter of mere logic rather than religious faith. However, did you ever get the fact that physicists think logically too, so that they could not have failed to get this argument insofar as it would be as logical as you believe it is ?

Where do you think you refuted my refutation, please ? You did not even take account of any of my arguments to look for any flaw they might contain. You just satisfied yourself to repeat the same elementary fallacy over and over again, as if this parrot repetition should suffice to dismiss whatever objection anyone may have against it with no need to examine them.

I dont think determinstic universes can create true random events

precisely a belief I refuted

, however, thats not the point. If there is only a small bit of randomness , for your arguement, it might as well be none. The universe needs to be majorly random for an idea such as yours to be usefull.

My argument was roughly that a classical mechanistic chaotic system is quickly full of randomness because the parameters of the initial state contain an infinity of digits of precision that, after the first few ones, necessarily turn out to be "absolutely random" for all practical purposes; and that intervene in macroscopic behavior very quickly.

If you reject such an hypothesis, it means you are not considering classical physics. But if the kind of physical laws you assume at the basis of your reasoning has nothing to do either with classical or quantum physics, then I just don't know what kind of hypothetical physical universe, which anyway cannot have anything to do with ours, you are trying to refer to.

schrodinger's cat experiment has one serious flaw: it doesnt consider the cat as an observer.

Actually I do personally consider cats as observers, but this is out of subject as you just said.

If you were , say , use a brick instead, it still works. However, schrodinger's trap ignores the 4th dimension. Time.
At some time, the gieger counter will be tripped if it can be, and the cat will die.

No it does not ignore time. Physicists are not idiots, when they consider a thought experiment, they are able to reason about it in such a way that they are not misled in their conclusion by any obvious flaw like this - and again, ifever someone made an error it would be quickly pointed out by others.

While this will happen at some apparently 'random time' , if you understood the state of the radioactive atoms and competently understood the subject, you COULD accurately predict when the cat will croak.

Once again you are not presenting any argument here but just repeating the exact same blind faith article you did from the start.

I dont see the 'big problem'.

The big problem is that you have no clue, not only about any effective possibility to know anything more than the current knowledge of quantum theory, namely what you believe here must exist: some "state of the radioactive atom" or anything like this that could determine the time of decay.
But you even have no clue of the knowledge that has been effectively obtained in quantum physics, that roughly PROVED that such an evolving "state of the radioactive atom", that you are blindly believing to be the cause of the time of decay, cannot exist.

quantum physics is an exception . We both know classical and quantum physics are both correct in thier domains. I was focusing on classical science. There is very little that can cross over between the two worlds. I have studied quantum physics in my own time. I do not think they came to the opposite conclusion as mine. They conclude some things in the quantum world, and I am obliged to agree. They dont have much to say on randomness, other than from baffling observations they make when watching atoms and parts of atoms. Again, an explaination of randomness is a declairation of ignorance. its like not knowing why the sun rises each day yet proclaim each day that god does it. Ignorance.

I'm sorry for you but your declarations are nothing more than expressions of your ignorance of physics. You say you studied quantum physics. Well sorry for you, but it is clear that your attendance of some quantum physics course, ifever you had one, remained extremely superficial. I cannot tell whether it is the fault of your teacher, or of the curriculum you followed that just did not aim to tell significantly many things but keep a superficial approach, or if it is your own lack of attention on the subject and your decision to stick to your beliefs whatever would be taught to you.
Anyway I'm sorry to say but any physicist familiar with quantum physics and reading your "arguments" would just laugh at them because they are so childish and completely fall flat given the currently established knowledge.

When preparing this reply I hesitated as this accusation might look like some arbitrary ad hominem. So I had a little more look on your other posts on quantum physics, to check whether they indicate any decent familiarity with the subject. As I expected, this confirms that you just have no clue about quantum physics.
For example:

Why does an electron jump from one orbit of an atom to another without passing through the space in between? you would seem to say that it doesnt matter, as long as we can predict the behaviour. I would say that finding out the cause leads to even more valuable knowledge such as wormholes, existance of other dimension, or super symmetry.

Such a description of the transition of an electron between orbits as a "jump from one orbit of an atom to another without passing through the space in between" and looking for such exotic causes to explain it, is just completely laughable for anyone who attended even a mere basic course on quantum physics with the Schrödinger equation, not to speak about people who studied quantum field theory, for whom such a transition does not keep any kind of mystery, and clearly has no resemblance whatsoever with any idea of a jump avoiding the space between orbits. In such conditions, it is obvious that while you appear to write the word "supersymmetry", you are extremely far from having any clue what this word really means for particle physicists.

I saw another message you wrote about quantum physics that also shows your ignorance of what you are talking about, but I think the above already suffices.

[sickles]

This is precisely what I have proven here in more general and sophisticated terms: that AquinasD's assertion is blatantly false

well if we agree what are we debating about? lol. Are we trying to debate the causality of existance? Since we come from different schools of thought we will have to agree to disagree.
.

The remark that our universe follows quantum theory is misleading. Our universe follows both classical and quantum theories of physics. Both are correct.

Wrong. Indeed there are possible issues for which we can genuinely say that classical physics is correct. Namely, classical physics is correct as a good approximation for some wide range of phenomena where this approximation applies and quantum effects are unsignificant.
But not for the kind of issue we are discussing here, which is about how things are going on the deepest level to analyze its metaphysical status. For this, the deepest and most accurate established description of physics should be used (quantum physics), while mere approximations (classical physics) are obsolete and should be discarded.

You agree that classical physics is what applies to 99% of each and every persons daily life and experiencees, while quantum mechanics is insignificant. Yet, you go on to then say not two sentences later that quantum mechanics is the only way to peek into the metaphysical, if there is a way to peek. Meanwhile, classical physics is a useless dinosaur of a by-gone era.

If we are to percieve the metaphysical, or understand it at all, it must necessarily apply to human existance, and therefore, classical mechanics would be very relevant (and probably changed).

Even if you choose to focus on the chaotic behavior of classical (macroscopic) systems, their very property of sensitivity to very small differences of initial conditions, drives the consequences of quantum fluctuations (random behavior) from their very small natural scales, to produce macroscopic effects.

I agree. The universe can come from nothing visa vi quantum fluctuations. Called random because we cannot predict them. I would say it is reasonable to add the caveat 'yet'. We cannot yet observe the causal properties of the quantum fluctuations. We are just now beginning to even measure the fluctuations, but we couldnt do even that 10 years ago. Thats my point, science isnt a snapshot. We get better faster stronger. And smarter. At a certain point in time, after taking into account Moore's law these 'random' fluctuations will be better understood, and will be able to be predicted in a lab. And no longer be 'random'.

When you write "How arrogant we are !" do you include yourself in this list of arrogant people ? Indeed you are not making yourself the move which you call "arrogant". Therefore to be clearer you should rather have written "How more arrogant than myself they are !", shouldn't you ?

yes i do include myself on that list. So, yea , I basically covered it with 'we'. Im sorry you interpreted my words incorrectly. I now see how it could be taken two ways. You also should see how it could be written two ways. Take a chill pill , broseph.

But you seem here to assume that when the community of physicists reaches a conclusion that does not agree with your beliefs then they must necessarily be idiots who never thought about what you are telling here and who just accepted without question the must absurd non-reasoning to support their conclusions.

I think a community of physicists is human. But no , they are much smarter than me. I accept the scientific conclusion.You seem quite upset, and im puzzled as to why.

Therefore you can confidently take the most absurd non-reasoning you can how it is possible for an idiot to claim that something is random when it appears random, and assume without question that this must surely have been the reasoning they made.

..... I dont even know how to make sense of this run-on nightmare....

Well, you just have no clue how physicists think and what drove them to their conclusion that there is fundamental randomness in physics.
Of course if your "analysis" of the situation and of what made them to conclude for randomness was indeed the situation of modern science, then almost everybody would have pointed out your argument, so that your position would have been adopted very quickly; probably right from the start already as Einstein tried to do it with the same argument you are making, but even if by any accident the founders of quantum physics were stupid enough to not think about it (ifever this theory could have been discovered by such idiots), then anyway it seems clear to me that such an unfounded consensus could not have been more stable (its half-life could not have been longer) than a tritium atom. Thus the persistence of this consensus should be telling: that they did find clues that you missed in support for their position.

...nope , this is the run-on nightmare...

Of course, what makes me say this, is also that I have some information on better arguments they could find to support the idea of fundamental randomness. Arguments which you don't seem to grasp (as you present things as if those arguments weren't there). (But I think this forum is the place to develop them because they'd be too long and hard and nothing new. For this you have to go and learn more about quantum physics, where it is taught)

Am I not allowed to read what the man says, point out it is clearly his personal opinion , and not his professional one. And then disagree?

It is not the consensus of scientists that everything that is decidely random now will not be causally understood in the future. Its a losing bargain and they know it. If one thing that was considered random is then understood, which has happened (Astronomy, Mathematics, Physics and more), then it sets a precedence that ANYTHING we consider random will be understood in time. Again, I evoke Moore's Law.

In such conditions, I must conclude that the one arrogant person here is you, not they.

... and calling me an arrogant uneducated idiot wont win you any brownie points either...

"Hopefully" you say ? Well, you are very hopeful indeed. The boldness of your faith may be considered very pious and admirable in Jesus'eyes. However, I'm sorry to say that any respect to the role of the Holy Spirit supporting your confidence here is irrelevant. Well I know you see it as a matter of mere logic rather than religious faith. However, did you ever get the fact that physicists think logically too, so that they could not have failed to get this argument insofar as it would be as logical as you believe it is ?

.... ok now you're getting into negative brownie point territory...

P.S. See my sidebar as to my thoughts on Jesus.

Where do you think you refuted my refutation, please ? You did not even take account of any of my arguments to look for any flaw they might contain. You just satisfied yourself to repeat the same elementary fallacy over and over again, as if this parrot repetition should suffice to dismiss whatever objection anyone may have against it with no need to examine them.

I examined the ideas you put forth. My words express this. I started my analysis at, what seemed to me a good idea, at the beginning. I found a few objections with your basic axioms. I expressed these objections in a civilized manner. We've been pretty much stuck there ever since.

I dont think determinstic universes can create true random events

precisely a belief I refuted

, however, thats not the point. If there is only a small bit of randomness , for your arguement, it might as well be none. The universe needs to be majorly random for an idea such as yours to be usefull.

My argument was roughly that a classical mechanistic chaotic system is quickly full of randomness because the parameters of the initial state contain an infinity of digits of precision that, after the first few ones, necessarily turn out to be "absolutely random" for all practical purposes; and that intervene in macroscopic behavior very quickly.

Ah, you ad the caveat 'for all practical purposes'. Practicality is a subjective human determination that changes over time. I win.

If you reject such an hypothesis, it means you are not considering classical physics. But if the kind of physical laws you assume at the basis of your reasoning has nothing to do either with classical or quantum physics, then I just don't know what kind of hypothetical physical universe, which anyway cannot have anything to do with ours, you are trying to refer to.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. Ta da.

No it does not ignore time. Physicists are not idiots, when they consider a thought experiment, they are able to reason about it in such a way that they are not misled in their conclusion by any obvious flaw like this - and again, ifever someone made an error it would be quickly pointed out by others.

While this will happen at some apparently 'random time' , if you understood the state of the radioactive atoms and competently understood the subject, you COULD accurately predict when the cat will croak.

Once again you are not presenting any argument here but just repeating the exact same blind faith article you did from the start.

How is 'understanding the state of radioactive atoms' and competently understanding the subject a "blind faith article"?

The big problem is that you have no clue, not only about any effective possibility to know anything more than the current knowledge of quantum theory, namely what you believe here must exist: some "state of the radioactive atom" or anything like this that could determine the time of decay.

Yes yes, I understand how half-life works. I also know that half-life can be used to work that shit out. Its one among many factors, anyway.

But you even have no clue of the knowledge that has been effectively obtained in quantum physics, that roughly PROVED that such an evolving "state of the radioactive atom", that you are blindly believing to be the cause of the time of decay, cannot exist.

ok, you gotta be more clear here. Got any ->relevant<- reading?

I'm sorry for you but your declarations are nothing more than expressions of your ignorance of physics. You say you studied quantum physics. Well sorry for you, but it is clear that your attendance of some quantum physics course, ifever you had one, remained extremely superficial. I cannot tell whether it is the fault of your teacher, or of the curriculum you followed that just did not aim to tell significantly many things but keep a superficial approach, or if it is your own lack of attention on the subject and your decision to stick to your beliefs whatever would be taught to you.

It is my religious belief to keep an evolving religious belief. Ill leave my knowledge of physics to be the topic of watercooler conversation at your job.

Anyway I'm sorry to say but any physicist familiar with quantum physics and reading your "arguments" would just laugh at them because they are so childish and completely fall flat given the currently established knowledge.

As yet, I am unaware of any quantum Physicist having read this thread. Id certainly be interested in what he had to say.

When preparing this reply I hesitated as this accusation might look like some arbitrary ad hominem.

..*cough* ...

So I had a little more look on your other posts on quantum physics, to check whether they indicate any decent familiarity with the subject. As I expected, this confirms that you just have no clue about quantum physics.

...*choke*..*gag*... *breathes*..

For example: (edited for mercy)

Im not going to defend old posts. I learn new shit all the time. Who do you think you are?

I saw another message you wrote about quantum physics that also shows your ignorance of what you are talking about, but I think the above already suffices.

A shitkicker thats who.

[spoirier]

When I wrote "that AquinasD's assertion is blatantly false" I was referring to his assertion that "the randomness hypothesis is unfalsifiable", which is indeed not the same question as the rest of this debate.

If we are to percieve the metaphysical, or understand it at all, it must necessarily apply to human existance, and therefore, classical mechanics would be very relevant (and probably changed).

My conviction is that our ordinary conciousness is immaterial and drives the bodily behavior through quantum effects in the brain that quantum theory would classify as "fundamentally random". The fact that ordinary people are not explicitly aware of these detailed mechanisms of this mind-body interaction, is irrelevant.
I expect these mechanisms to be someday discovered by neurologists, but of course I am aware that this is a very difficult science and that the progress there may be slow.

The universe can come from nothing visa vi quantum fluctuations

I was not referring to the beginning of the universe, on which I have no opinion, but to "ordinary" chaotic systems such as the weather.

We are just now beginning to even measure the fluctuations

I was not referring to fluctuation of the quantum void, but to any random process with quantum origin (not determined by any observable thing that lets the possibility of a prediction) such as the brownian motion of particles in a liquid (except for the small correlations with itself due to inertia or the like), or the radioactive decay, or the refection of a photon on a semi-reflecting surface. Such observations of quantum random phenomena are much older.

At a certain point in time, after taking into account Moore's law these 'random' fluctuations will be better understood, and will be able to be predicted in a lab. And no longer be 'random'.

Most quantum physicists would agree that this is the mere expression of an ignorant's prophecy, hardly more reasonable than, for example, would be the claim that "As our technologies of space travel and our understanding of physics continuously improve, we will surely someday discover the means to make interstellar travels faster than the speed of light".

I accept the scientific conclusion

You pretend to accept the scientific conclusion, but when the scientific conclusion is that there is strong evidence that the quantum randomness is a fundamental one, that there cannot exist any hidden difference between particles of the same type, such as radioactive particles "more or less ready to decay", then you don't accept the scientific conclusion anymore, but just faithfully pretend that such a thing cannot be scientifically concluded (without trying to understand the scientific reasons for this conclusion). Well...

You seem quite upset, and im puzzled as to why.

What is upsetting is that you spread a false picture of what are the scientific conclusions and how strongly they are supported. You pretend to "accept the scientific conclusions" in belief, and yet hold the opposite position in practice, by ignorance of what these scientific conclusions are. You missed the information that the scientific findings did make your little "arguments" obsolete (much too weak in comparison to the now known arguments to the contrary).

Am I not allowed to read what the man says, point out it is clearly his personal opinion , and not his professional one. And then disagree?

You choose to believe that this is "clearly" mere personal opinions according to your philosophy, by ignoring the professional-level evidence that they are based on. Because you have a divine faith in the idea that it cannot be possible for science to provide any rational support for the idea of randomness, so that no matter what body of evidence they could find, you can confidently dismiss them without examination and call them "personal opinion". Disregarding the fact that a large majority of these physicists only came to the conclusion for absolute randomness because they have been forced to do so by their professional evidence, while they would otherwise be naturally inclined to personally agree with your personal philosophical opinion that you have expressed here.

[spoirier]

For the irrelevance of classical physics I meant that, as of course metaphysics is about trying to find out things beyond how things superficially look like to the ignorant, but focus on how they ultimately are in their deepest nature beyond naive appearances, the classical physics only good to describe a range of naive appearances, is irrelevant here.

It is not the consensus of scientists that everything that is decidely random now will not be causally understood in the future.

How funny it is to see you commit here the fallacy of faulty generalization. Indeed there is no consensus that "everything" that seems random now will not be causally understood in the future. However, the random effects predicted by quantum theory are not just the same thing as "anything that seems random". They are the outcome of a very specific theory with very specific structures. They are not just an accidental case of some uniform panorama of many sorts of processes from different kinds of origins, that appeared random, to which all beliefs whether things may be truly random or not truly random, were always indiscriminately applied.
Your "arguments" here seem to be strongly based on your false presupposition that the beliefs that people may have whether a randomness is fundamental, cannot be justified by the specific structure of the theory that gives this randomness.
So, quantum theory is a specific theory, with a very specific structure that gives very specific arguments for the fundamental character of its randomness.

Your way of mixing the question of quantum randomness to some arbitrary unspecified generality "everything that is decidely random" as if both "quantum" and "arbitrary" types of randomness had to be the same, is the clear expression of your ignorance of quantum physics - and of your inability to argue without making use of logical fallacies.

By the way, do you know any example of a kind of "random" process that once seemed random in such a way that a precise probability law has once been formulated and appeared rather well confirmed by observations, until such causes were finally found that made the exact behavior predictable (or at least predictable with much better chances of correctness than by the former probability law) ? I cannot think of any.
Well, of course there are some obvious not-really-examples such as:
The ability to test and predict for a pregnant woman whether the baby will be male or female (not predictable before fertilization with unselected sperm)
The weather for tomorrow has never been given a seriously precise probability; the improvements to weather forecasts were painful but straightforward and remain impossible for the long term.
No probability laws were ever formulated for the movements of planets in the sky before understanding their precise orbits
Some refinements of formulas used by insurance companies and traders
The practice of insider trading
Improvements in the prediction of earthquakes remain slow and gradual.
The spreading of illnesses had not been given probability laws in the past, and is still not much predictable now.

Anything more striking than this ?

[spoirier]

Ah, you ad the caveat 'for all practical purposes'. Practicality is a subjective human determination that changes over time. I win.

No you don't win. There are cases when this expression can be used for subjective human dederminations that change over time. But this is not the case here. You have superficial reactions based on the wording used, disregarding the global mathematical structure of the argument and what non-trivial hints it can provide.
Your reaction is based on the assumption that there is a fundamental difference between the "practical" and the "fundamental" aspects. Indeed of course there are some cases where the difference is clear, however there are other cases such as this one I described, where, if you properly understand it, you will notice that the distinction between the "essential" and the "emergent" or "pratical" properties is effectively blurred - not just hidden but really broken.
That is the fallacy of essentialism that can "logically" lead to false conclusions such as those expressed by some Zeno's paradoxes.
See also the problem of renormalization in quantum field theory.

[spoirier]

How ironic is the fact you put forward the opposite argument in two contexts: on the one hand, you argue that the practical naive viewpoint (classical physics, often but not always applicable) must "of course" be the only valid viewpoint to discuss metaphysical issues. On the other hand you wanted to see a fundamental caveat in the fact that I pointed out a phenomenon occuring "for all practical purposes" while it was in fact more fundamental than you thought.

Like religious people you are playing martyr when someone dares to disagree with you. What you don't realize is how much more offending you are to the community of physicists by picturing them as if they failed to understand your little elementary argument; when you just dismiss their scientific findings and pretend they just cannot have any reason to claim that randomness is fundamental, so that it would be a mere personal view they would have mistaken with their scientific work.

It's a pity that there is a natural temptation to only see offenses when addressed to someone present in a conversation, but not when addressed to a scientific community that does not happen to be present in the current debate, as long as you can manage to reinvent their position in such a way that you don't seem to be offending to them. Such as by pretending that the physicists claiming for absolute randomness would be a tiny minority or that most of them would be admitting it to the mere status of personal philosophy.

I reject your reality and substitute my own. Ta da.

What a scientific attitude

How is 'understanding the state of radioactive atoms' and competently understanding the subject a "blind faith article"?

If it is not a blind faith article, then you are welcome to publish your scientific articles revealing to the physics community your understanding of the state of radioactive atoms. You will surely get a Nobel Prize soon after.

As yet, I am unaware of any quantum Physicist having read this thread. Id certainly be interested in what he had to say.

I think I know myself quantum physics enough to be confident about what I said about it here - you may see for example how I explained the subject here. But you are free to contact and invite any other quantum physicist if you like to know their opinion.

ok, you gotta be more clear here. Got any ->relevant<- reading?

Well, I'm afraid you need to do the hard work of learning quantum physics with enough depth to get that. Or you might try my own short introductory course (mixed with my philosophical views, sorry) where I give some key mathematical structures of quantum theory in simple ways; anyway disregarding personal opinions on interpretations, the core mathematical structure that I present there is rigorously equivalent (in simpler words) to the established one (again, you can ask other physicists to check that if you don't trust me).

[spoirier]

Some years ago I read a book in French by Valerio Scarani, introducing quantum physics for a large public and focusing on its paradoxical aspects about randomness. Thus somehow the "metaphysics" of quantum theory except that the author seems to not have any precise metaphysical orientation, or more precisely, he describes all as if it was not metaphysics. He just focuses on accurately reporting the current state of science on quantum theory and its logical implications.
Now I see there is also an English version (however it is a book for sale, not free access) ; but you can also visit the author's blog.

[sickles]

Spoirier you realize that your responses to my posts pretty much alternate between calling me ignorant, idiot, and uneducated. Instead of persisting in these ad hominem attacks , lets try addressing the questions at hand with reason, instead of continuing to commit the fallacy of 'appeal to authority' that seems so popular with you. I sure would appreciate it.

[spoirier]

Your requirement makes no sense. I'm not the one making any bold new claim, so I'm not responsible to justify it. I just report to you what the current state of science is. I have no duty to re-prove science for you. If someone claims that the Earth should be flat because it would be absurd to imagine people living upside down, and he is absolutely convinced that there could never have been any evidence to see it round, what I can I do ? I can just tell him that there is well-known evidence it is round, and that he needs to go and get informed from the world around him to check that information. If he wants a "proof" to his satisfaction avoiding any "appeal to authority", well, sorry I cannot invite him to the international space station to let him see the shape of the Earth by his own eyes.
So if you don't want to trust me about what science actually discovered, well, that's not my problem; it does not change what the scientific findings actually were. I have more important things to do in life than to dedicate it to people with that attitude.

[spoirier]

I mean, it would not be so hard to give evidence, in fact. But it's just up to you to go and learn it. I already gave you the indications how to go and learn the evidence (non-exclusive suggestions of links - you are free to go and check the information to any other place if you prefer). If you don't like this but you still complain that you are requesting rational evidence, then, well... I already gave you the means to learn that evidence if you are really interested to learn that evidence, what are you waiting for ? Your way of still claiming that you are waiting for evidence only suggests that you don't want to see it. You keep your eyes closed and you complain to not see the light. I cannot come and open your eyes by force. Sorry.