Does metaphysical randomness actually exist?

[Matthias123]

What do you guys think of this position?

Metaphysical randomness does not actually exist, and the universe does not have the potential to be any other way then it is, except if it is acted upon by a being with truly free will (Divine Will, or Human will, angelic will ect)

Therefore the evolution of species and the human race had no potential to unfold in any different way, even though they evolved through random mutations through natural selection. This randomness that we perceive is unpredictability do to the fact that we do not know how the original motion, of all thing exist, that moved everything from non-being, prefigured the universe.

 

[MindOverMatter]

What do you guys think of this position?

Metaphysical randomness does not actually exist, and the universe does not have the potential to be any other way then it is, except if it is acted upon by a being with truly free will (Divine Will, or Human will, angelic will ect)

Therefore the evolution of species and the human race had no potential to unfold in any different way, even though they evolved through random mutations through natural selection. This randomness that we perceive is unpredictability do to the fact that we do not know how the original motion, of all thing exist, that moved everything from non-being, prefigured the universe.

I’m not sure that i understand. Can you please explain a little bit further?

 

[Oreoracle]

Metaphysical randomness does not actually exist, and the universe does not have the potential to be any other way then it is, except if it is acted upon by a being with truly free will (Divine Will, or Human will, angelic will ect)

I’ve never understood the idea of free will. Christians say that our actions are not entirely determined by bodily qualities, such as genetics, instincts, etc. but they never explain if the faculty of free will has qualities. If it does, I could argue that those qualities determine our actions in the same way that genetics and instincts do. If it doesn’t, then free will is literally nothingness (due to the complete lack of qualities), and nothingness doesn’t have the potential to counteract bodily qualities. So if the faculty of free will has qualities, our actions are predetermined. If it doesn’t have qualities, our actions are still predetermined.

 

[geometer]

So if the faculty of free will has qualities, our actions are predetermined. If it doesn’t have qualities, our actions are still predetermined.

You should study chaos theory. Even the simplest of systems can exhibit complex behaviour which is unpredictable.

Anyway, this is your oppinion now, but can you change your mind about this problem? How has your oppinion been predetermined? And how could it be shown to be false that you have predetermined oppinions?

 

[Just_Lurking]

How does metaphysical randomness compare with the physical randomness of radioactive decay?

 

[Matthias123]

How does metaphysical randomness compare with the physical randomness of radioactive decay?

You should study chaos theory. Even the simplest of systems can exhibit complex behaviour which is unpredictable.

Randomness as far as I understand it means that the outcome cannot be predicted by human beings. Just Lurking your profile says you’re a mathematician, so I would be interested if you would define randomness for me.

Play devils advocate with me and let’s assume the Aristotelian God exists.

Metaphysical randomness would be objective randomness – randomness that would be universal. I am proposing that metaphysical randomness does not actually exist, and that what we call random is our inability to know and predict the outcome. That everything does not naturally have the potential to be any other way then it is, because everything was preconceived in the Divine Intellect.

What I am saying is that it is not necessary for God to screw around with the laws of physics after they have been created. Furthermore I am saying that God didn’t have to screw around with the evolutionary process after it started. To say he screwed around in the evolutionary process means that it started out flawed to begin with. Why would God preconceive and create something that would not work the way he wanted it to?

My proposition is that the universe did not have any potential to be any other way then it is. Accept when it is acted upon by beings with free will.

I’ve never understood the idea of free will. Christians say that our actions are not entirely determined by bodily qualities, such as genetics, instincts, etc. but they never explain if the faculty of free will has qualities. If it does, I could argue that those qualities determine our actions in the same way that genetics and instincts do. If it doesn’t, then free will is literally nothingness (due to the complete lack of qualities), and nothingness doesn’t have the potential to counteract bodily qualities. So if the faculty of free will has qualities, our actions are predetermined. If it doesn’t have qualities, our actions are still predetermined.

I don’t fully understand it myself. I would suggest, if you are interested to read some of Thomas Aquinas’s or Augustine’s work.

 

[Oreoracle]

You should study chaos theory. Even the simplest of systems can exhibit complex behaviour which is unpredictable.

I am, of course, operating under a few assumptions (one such assumption is that nothing is uncaused). For me, this is all just speculation.

Anyway, this is your oppinion now, but can you change your mind about this problem? How has your oppinion been predetermined?

My opinion could be decided by my environment, genetics, emotional tendencies, intellectual biases, etc., as could my actions, which would be affected by several additional factors. If my opinion changes, it could be because of these predetermined factors (thus, my change of opinion was also predetermined).

Let me ask it this way: If you knew the location of every atom in the universe, could infallibly predict their movements, knew every sapient being’s mental/emotional tendencies…In short, if you knew all about the universe and its inhabitants as they are at this moment, would you be able to predict my next action with 100% accuracy? If not, what is causing the reduced accuracy? My free will? Randomness in the universe? If it is my free will, why can its nature not be known in the same way the location and movement of atoms can? If it can’t be known at all, does that mean it doesn’t have qualities? And lastly, if it has no qualities, how can I be expected to use it? You can’t use nothingness.

And how could it be shown to be false that you have predetermined oppinions?

I would say that it can’t be proven true or false. Again, this is all just speculation for the fun of it.

 

[Matthias123]

Free will cannot be understood in a materialistic sense. That is why according to the Neo-Darwinist we don’t have free will. Fortunately for us people that are not moral nilists, our understanding of free will has never been a materialistic thing. Now not even animals like a dog or a cat have free will, because they are not “rational”. (As Aristotle says in Categories) Animals are governed by their senses and their instincts. They do not have truly free will. On the other hand we do have free will, and this has been known as a certainty for a very long time, until some recent erroneous opinions. We attribute this to our soul being made in the image and likeness of God.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Randomness as far as I understand it means that the outcome cannot be predicted by human beings. Just Lurking your profile says you’re a mathematician, so I would be interested if you would define randomness for me.

Mathematically, the modern theory of probability dates back about 100 years to the work of Borel and Lebesgue. In the modern framework, a “random variable” is a measurable function defined on a probability space. A probability space is a measure space having total measure equal to 1. The elements of the probability space are individual outcomes, and the measure of the probability space assigns probabilities to various subsets of the space which are called events.

Metaphysical randomness would be objective randomness – randomness that would be universal. I am proposing that metaphysical randomness does not actually exist, and that what we call random is our inability to know and predict the outcome.

Randomness is more than lack of knowledge, or inability to predict the outcome. From a deterministic process, you can predict the result. From a non-deterministic process, you cannot predict the result. Randomness is a very specific type of non-deterministic process that can be studied mathematically. The key property of randomness is that it guarantees an element of “fairness” or at least “uncontrolled”.

For example, suppose there is a chore that neither you nor I wish to perform. If we flip a coin to see who does the chore, then I think that is fair. If we ask your best friend to choose who should do the chore, that is also a non-deterministic process, but it is not random, as I suspect he will be biased in your favor but who knows. If we roll a die, and if it is a 6 then you do the chore and otherwise I do the chore, then it is biased but still uncontrolled, so it is also random.

Mathematically, the coin flip is modeled as a probability space S = {H,T}, where H is heads and T is tails. The measure assigns a probability of 0.5 to each outcome, and the random variable is given by the function f, where f(H) = “I do the chore” and f(T) = “You do the chore”.

 

[Matthias123]

Ok, if Aristotle’s God exists, and everything that exists, has existed, and will exist, was an idea of the Divine Intellect, could the universe potentially be any other way than it is now? (exuding the actions of beings with free will)

My answer would be that the universe could not potentially be any other way.

Here is an example: J.R.R Tolkien is plans to write a story. In his intellect he has his idea of Middle Earth. When he writes this story down on paper and thus creates his story, does it have any potential to be anything other then his idea of Middle Earth? For surely he must have the idea of middle earth before he writes the story.

So here is another example: God wants to create something. The idea of His creation is in His Divine Intellect. He then creates His idea, which is the world as we know it. Therefore could something exist in a way that is contrary to His idea (Unless it is acted upon by free will)? I would answer no. So a random outcome could not be an outcome that is contrary to the idea that was in the mind of God.

Furthermore, if in the Divine Intellect, he had the idea to evolve species over time, why would this system be flawed to the extent that it would require him to intervene in the evolutionary process? Why wouldn’t the original motion moving creation from non-being to being suffice for the organization necessary for the evolution of species?

So what I am trying to say is, I don’t think neo-Darwinism is against the faith. We are not forced to participate in the intelligent design movement. If neo-Darwinism is correct, it may hurt our teleological argument, and many people may make erroneous philosophical and metaphysical conclusions from this natural truth, but I do not think that is necessarily atheistic. I think that it is really neutral, and perhaps even expected from our point of view.

 

[MindOverMatter]

So what I am trying to say is, I don’t think neo-Darwinism is against the faith. We are not forced to participate in the intelligent design movement. If neo-Darwinism is correct, it may hurt our teleological argument, and many people may make erroneous philosophical and metaphysical conclusions from this natural truth, but I do not think that is necessarily atheistic. I think that it is really neutral, and perhaps even expected from our point of view.

This much is true. I still don’t understand the basis of your thread; however, there are two kinds of teleological arguement.

1. Behes irreducible complexity.
2. That things work toward purposeful and meaningful ends.

Number two is wholly compatible with natural-evolution and has never been disproved by Science.

 

[Matthias123]

I still don’t understand the basis of your thread;

I wanted to see if my opinion was erroneous by people with more experience in the metaphysics then myself. Apparently it is not.

 

[Chiral]

I think the answer to your query lies in the hypothetical “other possible worlds”. Defenders of free will contend that freedom demands a choice between at least 2 possible alternatives, X or not-X, and the choice made hypothetically generates 2 “possible worlds” - one in which choice X was made, the other follows choice not-X.
Determinism claims that, were you to step back and allow the agent to choose again, the same choice, say X, would be made every time because the illusory “choice” is really the result of a previously established course of causation, just like every other event in the universe. What started that course? The hypothetical “First Cause” or an infinite regression of causes, eitherway forces external to the arbiter of the choice itself. Thus there is only 1 “possible world”.
Indeterminism claims that, were you to step back and allow the agent to choose again, you cannot predict with absolute certainty the choice which the agent will make because, just like many other events in the universe, either A) there are infinitely many factors involved which can alter the decision, or B) the is inherent randomness associated with the event (i.e. it is a priori unpredictable).
A third sort of indeterminism exists with regard to free will: C) the agent/arbiter is himself the ultimate source of causation with regard to a choice being made, the other factors merely influence the decision without absolutely compelling the choice one way or another.
B and C are compatible, the inherent randomness being the personal will of the arbiter. In C the “possible world” is ultimately dependent on the free agent who is author of his own decisions. With regard to time, however, C can be quite different from B.
If an observer watches an agent S make choice X at T2, the observer then has knowledge of the event, and knowledge implies truth, and truth is immutable. Thus, if the observer then travels back in time to observe the choice again, he knows with the certainty of truth that S will choose X at T2 because he has “prior” experience of the event. This means that there is logically only one possible path for S, and many object that S therefore cannot truly “choose”! But this objection is ridiculous because it fails to acknowledge why S must choose X at T2 - namely that S herself as arbiter has “already” established the truth of one possible world, and no one can choose both X and not-X simultaneously!
The above scenario involving “truth” with regard to future events falls between Determinism and Indeterminism. Determinism declares that “truth” with regard to future events is absolutely and entirely contingent upon past events. Indeterminism declares that “truth” with regard to future events is nonsense, that the “future” is inherently undetermined until actualized as “present”. The third presented position allows for “truth” with regard to future events by simply changing view-points via a hypothetical observer - to the observer our “future” is his past, for he has already experienced what we have yet to experience. Thus, the “future” is undetermined until it is nolonger the “future”.

To conclude, I think the choices made by truly “free” beings constitute effects of “metaphysical randomness”, namely free will. However, this does not mean there are other “possible worlds”. Indeed, if there exists an omnipresent omniscient entity, then the “future” is not actually the “future” from His perspective and so all of time-space reality is “determined” - it’s just that it is determined at each present moment by precisely those free agents acting at that moment .
As for physical randomness/indeterminism, even if all physical events are ultimately caused by the non-physical action of a free entity - namely the exercise of free choice, which constitutes creation ex nihilo - they are still undetermined before their actualization.

So i guess I should ask, do you consider the exercise of free will “randomness” or not?

 

[tjm190]

Uncertainty principle>determinism

 

[Matthias123]

So i guess I should ask, do you consider the exercise of free will “randomness” or not?

I would.

From what I understand Heisenberg uncertainty principle doesn’t really have any bearing on us. For our arguments on causality we talk about substantial change that must be caused.

We shouldn’t put very much weight on what modern scientists say about metaphysics. Quantum physicists presuppose methodological naturalism, therefore to them the cause of the apparent uncaused existence of virtual particles in a vacuum are deemed materially uncaused. If they say there is no metaphysical cause, then they are pretending to be metaphysicians.

The fact is something that does not exist cannot bring itself into existence.(Because it doesn’t exist) I accept the conclusion of modern quantum physics that apparently cannot see a physical cause, but to say there is no cause whatsoever is insane. There is a cause, it is just not apparently material.

 

[tonyrey]

Metaphysical randomness does not actually exist, and the universe does not have the potential to be any other way then it is, except if it is acted upon by a being with truly free will (Divine Will, or Human will, angelic will etc)

Although everything is created by God there is no reason why randomness cannot exist** within **the universe. To assert that everything must be determined implies that God cannot create randomness! Similarly randomness may exist “beyond” the universe if it is created by God but randomness cannot co-exist with God because He is the only Ultimate Reality.

Whether randomness is a divine attribute depends on how randomness is defined. God is certainly creative and His creativity is not determined by anything. Yet it is not undetermined. So what is it? The only possible solution is that it is self-determined. Spontaneous creativity, rationality, truth, goodness and love are all present in God. Obviously we cannot fully understand how He exists but we can understand to some extent how His attributes are related because we have direct experience of His activity in our own activity.

We are creative and rational with a capacity for love and self-determination. Animals too are creative and love their own but without free will and the power of reason they are incapable of creativity or love in the full sense of those terms. We know that we and we alone of all creatures on earth are responsible for our choices and decisions. In that sense we are “prime movers” because such unique responsibility is explained only by a participation in God’s creativity and freedom. He is immutable but causes change. He is not a static entity but the Source of dynamic energy. So if randomness is defined as spontaneity it does exist metaphysically in the Creator!

Therefore the evolution of species and the human race had no potential to unfold in any different way, even though they evolved through random mutations through natural selection. This randomness that we perceive is unpredictability do to the fact that we do not know how the original motion, of all thing exist, that moved everything from non-being, prefigured the universe.

There is no reason why God should not allow spontaneity and random mutations to exist within the universe but it must be subordinate to the development of life as we know it. There could have been variations in the ways in which evolution has proceeded but the outcome would be the same: the existence of individuals who share the joy and fulfilment of being creative and in love!

 

[Leela]

Randomness is more than lack of knowledge, or inability to predict the outcome. From a deterministic process, you can predict the result. From a non-deterministic process, you cannot predict the result. Randomness is a very specific type of non-deterministic process that can be studied mathematically. The key property of randomness is that it guarantees an element of “fairness” or at least “uncontrolled”.

For example, suppose there is a chore that neither you nor I wish to perform. If we flip a coin to see who does the chore, then I think that is fair. If we ask your best friend to choose who should do the chore, that is also a non-deterministic process, but it is not random, as I suspect he will be biased in your favor but who knows. If we roll a die, and if it is a 6 then you do the chore and otherwise I do the chore, then it is biased but still uncontrolled, so it is also random.

Mathematically, the coin flip is modeled as a probability space S = {H,T}, where H is heads and T is tails. The measure assigns a probability of 0.5 to each outcome, and the random variable is given by the function f, where f(H) = “I do the chore” and f(T) = “You do the chore”.

Someone who is good at flipping a coin can get heads every time.

By the way, since you were asking about what metaphysics means, in this thread we see a good example of the case I’ve been trying to make. Metaphysics is the attempt to get past appearances to reality as it really is. Mattias is arguing that from a human perspective, things may appear random but that nothing actually is random from some imagined perspectiveless perspective.

Best,
Leela

 

[Just_Lurking]

Metaphysics is the attempt to get past appearances to reality as it really is.

Science has that characteristic as well. So far, the difference between science and metaphysics seems to lie in the methods used, such as experimentation versus just thinking about things.

 

[Leela]

Science has that characteristic as well. So far, the difference between science and metaphysics seems to lie in the methods used, such as experimentation versus just thinking about things.

Science is sometimes thought of in that way, but not always. Personally, I don’t think the fact that Newtonian science works better than Aristotelian science means that the universe speaks Newtonian.

Have you ever read Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolution? I think you’d be blown away, and it would clear up a lot of questions you have.

 

[Chiral]

Science is sometimes thought of in that way, but not always. Personally, I don’t think the fact that Newtonian science works better than Aristotelian science means that the universe speaks Newtonian.

Have you ever read Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolution? I think you’d be blown away, and it would clear up a lot of questions you have.

Kuhn - man that guy is repetitive and he loves the word “paradigm”! But I agree, good book.
As a scientist (biology), I generally think of “metaphysics” as the basis for all scientific thought: We observe a supposed reality, think about how to interpret what we have observed, generate a hypothesis, then use whatever tools we have available that are applicable to test that hypothesis. Of course, we first must ascertain whether the tools we have are up to the task, and for that we must also generate and test a hypothesis. The assumptions we make when dealing with the physical world are metaphysical. In this way metaphysics precedes natural science. The essence of metaphysics seems to be “What if…” and I’m babbling…