Random (stochastic) events are unpredictable but unpredictable events are not necessarily (or usually) random. Events can have effects. "Chance" is a property of some events. On occasion, chance events cause effects (e.g. stochastic processes). — 180 Proof

:up: I agree. Consider the following then. Take a die, any die (do you play Ludo?), and roll it n times (don't waste yer time actually doing it of course; plenty of math videos out there where people perform this experiment + your time is too precious ta waste on silly stuff like this :smile: )
Record the numbers that show up. As n increases, the experimental probability (the frequency of the numbers that you actually get) will approach the theoretical probability (the predicted frequency under the assumption that the die is behaving randomly). Rolling a die is random for all intents and purposes is the conclusion.


However, the cause of the die turning up a 2 or a 6 or 6 or any other number consists of the force you apply on the die, the roughness of the table, etc.

Chance describes behavior, is not the cause of a phenomenon/object.

Muchas gracias.

Enjoyed the vid. Sean Carroll, one of my favorite celeb physicists.

I guess, in the context of the video, I'm asking what was the cause of the low entropy state of the Big Bang + what triggered the low entropy $\to$ high entropy movement?

The honest answer is that temporality comes with the territory of fantasy.

There's a good reason we have conflicting physics, a good reason for principles of uncertainty: because the word most like what reality is is fantasy.

It makes sense for the universe to make no semantic sense, but it'll unfortunately be five hundred years before we figure that out.

You're on a roll! :cool:

I'm just correct. It's gonna be years before people catch on, though. Such is the need for power.

Just dicking around in contemporary pop reality, surrounded by atheist crybabies who substitute a lack of faith for an abundance of intellect.

With regard to the idea of predestination, it has probably developed differently in various philosophy contexts. However, as far as I understand in the Judaeo-Christian tradition it often was in relation to the idea of sin, salvation and of the afterlife. It was based on the assumption that God, as designer, crafted each person and had a role in being responsible for the individuals.

This led to the question as to whether God was accountable for whether human beings could overcome sin. This moved onto the complex issue as to whether human beings were destined to enternal life in hell or heaven. It raised a lot of issues about the nature of evil and most thinking about chance and destiny. It is so different from the way most people think of the issues today, based on the knowledge of science. Beyond the issues of physics, which led to Einstein's query, 'Does God play dice?' the dynamics of philosophy have altered so much.

Quantum physics has looked at the issue from so many different angles. Einstein's ideas about the existence of God were ambiguous, and some physicists like Stephen Hawking have come from a materialist angle whereas others like Paul Davies and David Bohm have challenged materialistic determinism. The main difference with quantum theory is that so many questions have arisen. There is Heisenberg's emphasis on the uncertainty principle and so many theories, including chaos theory, which suggests some underlying order within the background of chaos and unpredictability.

One overriding understanding emerging is the systems point of view. This may involve perception of the various aspects of the issue of chance in the natural order and in human life, including free choice. In particular, in thinking about human nature and behaviour, the bio-psychosocial approach may be important. This involves thinking about the basic aspects of biology, including genetics as well as the various aspects of psychological development, including cultural and factors in social life. This is such a big contrast with the Christian notion of predestination which relied on a belief in the source and God, as a deity and creator, behind the scenes of nature and life.

The more the merrier, eh?

I'm not ruling out chance in phenomena, I just don't think it can be a cause.

Yes, there is probably a link between causality and the issue of chance. However, to see chance as a cause is probably missing many other aspects, and it is about the many variables. It may be like if it is a strong windy day and a tree blows down and kills a person it is not possible to attribute the death to the wind or the tree alone because it is the interaction between the two and that a person was in the vicinity.

I think that the wind has just thrown the thread into the lounge as an invisible hand of destiny somehow!

What? Me thread has been moved to the lounge? How depressing!

We aren't making any progress Jack - you seem to concur with my views, more or less that is.

What do you think The Lounge is Jack? :smile:

I suppose we should take it all with a sense of humour as it is possible to think so hard about all these issues. Threads start and fade and if we agonise over them we won't do ourselves any good. So it may be best to take it in the strongest philosophy stride, as a mixture of chance and manifest destiny.

:up:

I don't consider myself destiny material mon ami! A person who has a destiny is a great person and no, I'm not an ape. :cool:

I suppose it is also worth considering what both the concepts of chance and destiny mean, because at times they are used in a rather vague way, almost as if they are opposites. To some extent I see the term chance as conjuring up a lack of direction and purpose. Destiny may be about some fixed end, but they may not be opposites entirely. There is starting points and ends, which may be where the concept of causation comes in. It could be asked if causes and ends are in a straightforward linear process or to what extent the goal is inherent in the understanding of the causal process?

My destiny is to have no destiny?! :chin:

"Chance" what? It's only a property, a descriptor, a modifier in need of a referent that contextualizes the question "Is chance a cause?" My answer (again): Chance events are occasionally causes ... of other events. (e.g. radioactive decay).

Chance what? It's only a property, a descriptor, a modifier in need of a referent that contextualizes the question "Is chance a cause?" My answer (again): Chance events are occasionally causes ... of other events. (e.g. radioactive decay). — 180 Proof

:ok: