Talking about randomness is off topic. The topic involves nondeterminism which is not the same as randomness.
Random behavior is one type of nondeterministic behavior.
(On the other hand, rolling a set of dice
isn’t random – it’s just sufficiently difficult to model that we shrug and say “meh… for all intents and purposes, it’s close enough to ‘random’ to consider it as such”!)
There is a further difference if you consider what is meant by a random number generator.
Hence my comment.
In any event, randomness and nondeterminism are two different concepts.
If, by that, you mean that “chocolate cake” and “dessert” are two different concepts? Sure.
Nevertheless, the point that @YHWH_Christ and @Freddy was discussing was whether randomness at the quantum level demonstrates that the universe is non-deterministic. I think there’s merit in that discussion, but it’s also a difficult one to hang your hat on. I think Freddy’s mistaken when he (seems to be) saying that “quantum level random[ness] but [not] at the macro level” means that we’re deterministic at the macro level. After all, you can model behavior with Markov chains and it ends up “feeling” like a good representation of what’s being modeled. Since the “decision” to move from one state to the other is probabilistic, can you say that it’s deterministic?
However, even
if you want to make that claim, you’d have to demonstrate that the underlying mechanism is
truly random, or if it just has the appearance of randomness. (And, then again, we get to the $64,000 question: can anything be said to be
truly random?)
So, basically, I think that your assertion that randomness is irrelevant is mistaken. However, I think that an appeal to randomness – however apropos – is a dead end.
It would seem that our actions/choices are either caused by some preexisting conditions
I think that you could show that “pre-existing conditions” are
(name removed by moderator)uts to the subsequent decisions… but can you show
causation ? That seems a higher bar…
That doesn’t seem to hold up, either. If it did, I wouldn’t pick chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream 99% of the time, right?
Perhaps instead, the will acts as a mediator between cause and effect, such that it evaluates and intercedes between the two.
That would still be “free will”, then, right?