Why is Randomness so Hard to Prove?

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
The only only way the ball can rise again is if the neurons inside my brain fire (my FREE WILL), in order to toss it again.

[/ QUOTE ]
But why are the neurons firing in your brain free? Don't we consider neurons to be just as entangled in the laws of physics as anything else? What causes them to fire?

[ QUOTE ]
Now determinism would say that the neurons which fired inside my brain causing the ball to rise the 2nd time were already set in motion and couldn't have been stopped. In other words, it could've been no other way. However, I see this as two SEPERATE events which acted independently from the primary event (the big bang or whatever), because something within the antedecent event STOPPED and then started again! This disengages the agent momentarily from the primary event.

[/ QUOTE ]
Momentarily, yes. I think I understand what you are saying, but stop me if this is a mischaracterization of your position. What you are saying is that causation is not transitive, and I agree. The big bang doesn't cause the ball to rise any more than a butterfly in India causes you to post on a message board. However, transitivity of causation isn't necessary for determinism--all that is necessary is a causal chain. E.g., the big bang causes some other state, which causes some other state, which causes the ball to rise. The big bang doesn't cause the ball to rise, but it does initiate the causal chain. In that sense, causation is not transitive, but having no choice is.


[ QUOTE ]
I'm thinking this belief might very well change as I come to understand determinism. But for now all the arguments I've heard in favor of determinism seem no more plausible than arguments for a god.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you just disagree with determinism, which is perfectly acceptable. I am just trying to get you to understand it. However, most libertarian positions these days are extremely weak. It's really not doing so well; but of course, that has no bearing on its truth or falsity.

[Lestat]

Thanks atrifix -

I really do appreciate your efforts in trying to help me understand determinism. You've been a BIG help!

Yes, I guess what I was saying is that causation is not transitive. And now I see what you're saying that it doesn't have to be. I need to think much more about this.

I take it libertarian position means free will? This is what has me so confused. The impression I'm getting is that determinism is a popular atheistic view, while free will is a religious one. Would you agree with this, or do I have that wrong? This is why I'm trying so hard to understand it. If you read my posts, you know I am not a religious believer. I'm trying to find out if my beliefs are conflicting. Thanks again!

[atrifix]

I don't know exactly who holds which beliefs. I'm not terribly keen on keeping track of people's religious beliefs. Religion and determinism are definitely compatible, and, I would say, not really related. All I know is that philosophically, both religion and libertarianism were both big at one point (Kant was a libertarian, Descartes offered several arguments for God, etc.), but these days they're both on the fringes. Not to say that they're wrong, but they are on the fringes.