Hank Rearden wrote:

Randomness is a concept of measurement, specifically a measure of the
lack of understanding/analytical ability by humans of a causal system.

But the notion of a causal system is based on observing a set of instances
where one event follows another, from which which we infer a notion of cause
and effect. We then extrapolate that notion to instances that we haven't
observed, or which haven't occured yet, and thereby impose a notion of
causality on what is, literally, unknown.

A random dataset could appear to be ordered to us, and we would be none the
wiser.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm
www.wally.myby.co.uk

"Wally" wrote in message
k...

A random dataset could appear to be ordered to us, and we would be none
the
wiser.

That's why experiments must be reproducable.

Hank Rearden wrote:

A random dataset could appear to be ordered to us, and we would be
none the wiser.

That's why experiments must be reproducable.

Still doesn't address the underlying problem that the notion of causality is
no more than an inference wrought of the empire of our experience.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm
www.wally.myby.co.uk

A random dataset could appear to be ordered to us, and we would be
none the wiser.


That's why experiments must be reproducable.


Wally wrote:
Still doesn't address the underlying problem that the notion of causality is
no more than an inference wrought of the empire of our experience.


That's true enough. But here's where the difference between "science"
and philosophy creeps in... when it's science, it happens every time.

For example, the phenomenon of water flowing downhill is essentially a
random event, the illusion caused by trillions of odd-shaped molecules
bouncing around any way they want. But somehow, water *always* flows
downhill.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

DSK wrote:

That's true enough. But here's where the difference between "science"
and philosophy creeps in... when it's science, it happens every time.

For example, the phenomenon of water flowing downhill is essentially a
random event, the illusion caused by trillions of odd-shaped molecules
bouncing around any way they want. But somehow, water *always* flows
downhill.

The correct statement is: In every instance that we have observed, water has
flowed downhill.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm
www.wally.myby.co.uk

I've seen water come off a fall and be blown up into the air. I'm quite
sure some evaporated and rose to the clouds. Hmmmmmmmm

Joe

For example, the phenomenon of water flowing downhill is essentially a
random event, the illusion caused by trillions of odd-shaped molecules
bouncing around any way they want. But somehow, water *always* flows
downhill.


Wally wrote:
The correct statement is: In every instance that we have observed, water has
flowed downhill.


I stand corrected.

But the big prize is still the same: Person A bets the farm that water
flows downhill. Person B figures it's just random motion and might go up
hill at any time... who wins?

DSK

DSK wrote:

But the big prize is still the same: Person A bets the farm that water
flows downhill. Person B figures it's just random motion and might go
up hill at any time... who wins?

Why should person B figure it's just random motion?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm
www.wally.myby.co.uk

A random dataset could appear to be ordered to us, and we would be
none the wiser.


That's why experiments must be reproducable.


Wally wrote:
Still doesn't address the underlying problem that the notion of causality is
no more than an inference wrought of the empire of our experience.


That's true enough. But here's where the difference between "science"
and philosophy creeps in... when it's science, it happens every time.

For example, the phenomenon of water flowing downhill is essentially a
random event, the illusion caused by trillions of odd-shaped molecules
bouncing around any way they want. But somehow, water *always* flows
downhill.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King