Night Ripper wrote:
I think a random event is an event in which there is no intelligible pattern or order in regards to its occurrence.
You're confusing epistemology with ontology. The way things actually are is regardless of what we can know about them.
Hi Zetherin! Yea, random usually means without conscious manipulation, but we assume there was some cause.
The word cause can suggest necessity. Like if you drop a rock, it's fall is caused by gravity. If we say that we may be assuming that there was no alternative... like gravity is a law that can't be broken and it somehow orchestrates events. I think that's fundamental to the Newtonian view of gravity. But we could notice that we never observed a "law." We just observe that things regularly fall when you drop them.
That's cool because it relieves us of having to support the notion that gravity is a "causer" as opposed to gravity being the name for the fact that things fall.
Determinism doesn't require any deep understanding of causal relationships which is good because our common perception of time will lead us to a pardox regarding cause... there would have to be a primal uncaused event... either that or time goes back infinitely... which we can't conceive. And as we all know, as certain as we may be about our reasoning, if it hinges on an inconceivable element... that's doesn't give us the warm fuzzies we were really hoping for.
An alternative to the cat-round-up of trying to figure out how events happen is to examine the objective view of this moment, the universe is a set of happening events... call them actualities... that distinguishes them from their kin in the nether world: possibilities.
The unmanifest possibilities didn't happen. From our point of view, they don't exist as anything but figments of imagination. It would appear that they have no reality beyond the magic of human thought. Once you subtract the possibilities out of your picture of reality, you get this: the present set of events... the universal event we call now... apparently had a 100% chance of happening. Any other answer is going to have to get its groove on giving an ontological proof of alternate possibilities.
So to sum up.. the better form of determinism is one that focuses on an objective view of everything. The subjective view, of course, is a totally different animal.
I may have just put this ancient thread in the blender... but thanks to Robert, it's still here to be slogged through.
Hope you're doing well!