Is randomness actually a proven concept or do we just use this word to describe happenings that appear to have no reason to happen other than they do.

It is true that we use randomness in many ways but in philosophy is randomness a reality or an illusion?
I do realise that determinism has been done to death but this is a thread focussed on randomness and can randomness be determined if truely random.

Care to discuss?

are you talking about the differnce between a chaos system and random system or mathmatical randomness?

because if you mean is the universe a chaos system or compleatly random there is NO way to determine it because you cant run the universe again. I surpose if you say that the universe is chaos then you cant say that tossing a coin (or whatever) is random because its ALL determined but you just cant predict it

are you talking about the differnce between a chaos system and random system or mathmatical randomness?

because if you mean is the universe a chaos system or compleatly random there is NO way to determine it because you cant run the universe again. I surpose if you say that the universe is chaos then you cant say that tossing a coin (or whatever) is random because its ALL determined but you just cant predict it
Actually I was thinking more about randomness than chaos, not that there is much difference I suppose.

The universe was for example in a state of chaos early in it's existence, Confusion I guess, but as time passed, form took place but even though today we see significant form does randomness being a degree of chaos have validity as a concept?

i ment that chaos will LOOK like randomness (is that even a word?) to an observer, the difference is that random events have NO cause where chaos says that there IS a cause (actually a whole LOT of causes) but there is no way we can measure them acuratly enough ever to predict the system with any degree of acuracy. I would say that true randomness doesnt exist because things like the weather which were THOUGHT to be random are all being found to be complex systems. Just like we can predict the position of the planets in the solar system but only to a point and that doesnt take into account any outside infullences like planets being hit by large astorieds ect. I would say that the whole of the universe is complex rather than random

I just started reading about the chaotic theory. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't it discuss events and such happening at random, out of place, and the liking?

Choas (as i understood it, i am by no means an expert and anyone who thinks im wrong is free to corect me) means that the starting conditions of a system need to be measured to the infinite degree of acuracy in order to get predictions that will be in anyway acurate because the smallest amout of error in the measurements will snowball. Thats why the weather can be predicted for a few days but is impossable after that. I THINK that the choas theory is the same thing as complex systems, not 100% sure. The example that i was reading related it to people and driving, and it said that a car alone is a complicated system (it has lots of parts) and its actions alone are for the most part predictable (using newtons laws assuming they put the handbreak on:p and even if they didnt if you know that you can predict what will happen), when you add a person both become harder to predict ahead of time and if you add achole as well its even HARDER to predict so they are complex. That doesnt mean that they are random, it just means that you need to know the conditions to the apsolute infinite degree in order to MAKE a prediction. True randomness would mean that there is apsolutly NO way to predict (no matter how acuratly) it because events would have no cause they would just be random. Altho tossing a coin may SEEM random its more likly to be complex depending on the wind, how you fliped it, the density of the coin in various positions ect and that makes it HARD to predict but not impossable

Ahh...I see.....

Yeah, snowball effect. Asguard's got it.

It was first discovered with computer modeling, since you could compute hundreds of variables very quickly.

Truly random.... I suppose philosophically nothing is ever truly random, as there's a potential for endless reductionism and reasoning. However, much of it is impossible.

And then there's quantum probability....

The universe seems to be governed by deterministic processes, so I would conclude that "randomness" is a human notion, not something inherent in reality, no.

Prince–
The universe seems to be governed by deterministic processes
On the macro scale it seems to be, but that doesn't mean that's how things are. As an organism, especially one that considers itself rational, a deterministic world view is very helpful to survival. By learning that a berry tastse like burning, we know for future reference that the berry will taste like burning. Unless, they were Schrodinger's berries. But they aren't at the macro scale.

Micro-wise, everything's random.

possably

Roman:

On the macro scale it seems to be, but that doesn't mean that's how things are. As an organism, especially one that considers itself rational, a deterministic world view is very helpful to survival. By learning that a berry tastse like burning, we know for future reference that the berry will taste like burning. Unless, they were Schrodinger's berries. But they aren't at the macro scale.

Micro-wise, everything's random.

Awesome embedded Ralph Wiggum reference.

Now, as to whether or not the atomic level is deterministic, we need only speak of the natural laws which all these particles follow. If these do not compulse them in an utterly deterministic manner, then what -does-? A hydrogen atom, subjected to the extreme heat of the sun, has no capacity to "randomly" decide to not undergo fusion. Even some oddities of quantum physics are not "random", but are steeped in causes which are perfectly naturalistic and, due to their very nature, can produce but one outcome, although somethings are obscured by so many contingencies, many of which cannot be known yet due to the Uncertainty Principle, that we can only hope, at the present moment, to predict them within certain levels of accuracy.