[supersloth]

i don't even know who he is replying too.

[Christoph]

I think he is replying to the OP, in the OP his last question was "What do you think?"

[baavgai]

Random is, by one definition, unpredictable. If we could predict something with any degree of certainty, we wouldn't bother to call it random.

The OP, rather than talking about random, is asking about the nature of causation. These aren't entirely related, but you can see how someone might confuse them.

Handler, on 05 November 2010 - 09:21 AM, said:

No human mind can comprehend the meaning of random simply because it does not exist.

A mind can clearly comprehend it, otherwise the concept wouldn't exist. Random doesn't imply lack of causation, simply lack of predictability or perceivable pattern. If you can predict the result of a die roll at better than chance, then something in the process is non random.

You are using "random" when you want to use, I don't know, magic? Few belief systems contend that something comes from nothing. Except maybe the BEGINNING OF ALL!!!

Handler, on 05 November 2010 - 09:21 AM, said:

Would the chain of actions and events ever end? it can not

Fine. Then why imply a chain of events that is infinite into the future is finite into the past?

What most people can't conceive of is something without beginning. We call that thing reality. This solves a myriad of metaphysical mumblings.

[dorknexus]

mumble mumble mumble.

[Sergio Tapia]

Just stopped for a second and thought about the beginning of everything. It seems it was a bad move all around.

[dorknexus]

prove it.

[Sergio Tapia]

Well you kind of prove my point.

[supersloth]

you definitely prove your own point.

[Choscura]

marble oyster sandwiches waif seventeen.

[chuck981996]

I don't think anything can be TRULY random. Everything is predictable to a degree and therefore only pseudo-random. However, I subscribe to the theory of multiverses, and assuming there ARE infinite universes with infinite possibilities, the probability of anything occurring is infinite. If everything has an equal possibility of occurring, how can it not be random?

[Choscura]

There is true randomness. With any given person, an exact input will have an indetermined effect. Even a single category of input will have an indetermined effect within a homogenous population: take all the white collar office workers in your office and show them a porno mag, for example, and you'll find some who are very interested and some who have no interest, and there will be nothing determined about office workers by this. you can make the argument "it's all down to quantum particles" or some such shit, but at a certain point there has to be randomness, even of a certain definable nature, for us to be able to efficiently deal with the data present around us at any point in the universe.

[Atli]

Handler, on 05 November 2010 - 03:21 PM, said:

So how did the universe come into being? ... the only solution would be that the universe was created by a circular chain of events, an infinite loop of time.

Nope. That is not the only solution. It may be the only solution you can think of right now, but it is definitely not the only one in existence. I'm not even saying you are wrong; there is just no way to know at this point.

We do that a lot. We rule out things that we can not imagine; assuming they do not exist. We even fight hard against believing in them once they are brought to our attention. - Well, some of us at least. Some have embraced the unknown. Others make shit up to avoid the fact that we don't know everything, or are willing to believe anything to the same effect. (We are naturally afraid of the unknown.)

But the real reason why the universe came into being is out there. You may have guessed it. Likely you have not.
My point is that saying: "the only solution would be..." is naive. Your solution is just one possibility; one of many possibilities; many of whom are unimaginable to us.

[RetardedGenius]

I think 'random' is just synonymous for that 'which we cannot fully comprehend'.

[supersloth]

well it's already been pointed out in this thread that it's pretty easy to comprehend random.

[RetardedGenius]

supersloth, on 06 November 2010 - 10:40 AM, said:

well it's already been pointed out in this thread that it's pretty easy to comprehend random.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't read the preceding posts, just gave my two pennies. If this is the case how so?

I always believed that random, in its true sense, simply doesn't exist; after all we can't write programs which can truly arbitrarily generate numbers can we? Or can we?