Randomness

To a person observing the painter it may appear that where he puts the next stroke of paint is random, but to the painter it is not.

But if the painter were to paint the same motive twice it is likely that the process of painting it will not be identical to the last painting, even though the end results can be nearly indistinguishable.

So according to one way of looking at it it's random, but according to another it is not.

Exactly, and no matter how purposefully and predictably she paints, on a universe/time scale, her very existence is so unlikely that anything she does is random in that context. Or, a single tiny dot of paint on the canvas, when zoomed in upon, can have an infinitely long and convoluted perimeter.

Eori, a very creative post. Thanks.
Cyracuz, I get your meaning and appreciate it, but I see my painting experience a little differently. Most of my applications of paint to the canvas or paper are only partially controlled; to an extent the actual results are accidental. The artistic part is my decision to keep or reject (and rub off or paint over) that application. But the process is not completely randomish or accidental. I don't just throw paint on the canvas; I apply it but with enough freedom to achieve a degree of surprise. The resulting painting is almost never exactly what I intended. Thank goodness.

I am glad we found at least one process that neither randomness or determinism can describe properly.
Within the confines of the conceptual nothingness of a blank canvas the artist is everything. His universe, his laws.
But even this I tend to view as a kind of determinism, since I see the concept of free will as the experience of being capable of "enforcing" determinism. Existence is some kind of self-determining system in which everything has effect equal to it's potential, and everything is affected by any force it is suceptible to or exposed to in any way. As little ingredients in this universe we hold a little of the "determining energy", which we percieve as free will.

Eorl, what do you mean that her existence is so unlikely?

That you are here now requires a particular sperm to meet a particular egg at a particular time, just for you to be conceived, and the same for your parents and so on, with every event that occurred since the beginning of conceivable time that contributed to (and did not distract from) the path that leads to you. So the chance that you would put any paint on a canvas at all, no matter how deliberate you were being, was entirely random from a universal perspective. Another way to look at it is to imagine how much we could predict about a particular work of art 13 billion years in the future.

But how do I know that I am me? That the sperm that did reach the egg first was indeed me, and not my brother? Maybe he is me, and I am unborn.
What I mean to say is that to speak of alternate outcomes to reality is to add an imagined aspect to it all. Whatever the probabilities of any outcome may be, what actually happend was inevitable. Or, thats how I tend to think of it. We can't know if there will even be anyone around with an interest in making a painting in 13 billion years. But if there is, and if he does, then it was inevitable.

I feel--and it's only my subjective feeling, nothing I can prove--that whatever has come to be was inevitable. It HAD to be ONLY BECAUSE it is. From here on it's wide open. So I'm a determinist of a sort regarding the past and a non-determinist of sort regarding the future that hasn't happened yet.
The New Physics may change my mind, if I ever understand it.

Yes, that is how I tend to think of it as well.
But what do you mean by "new physics"?

Everything from string theory to particle theory (don't ask me what they are-ask Fresco and Thomas)...all the latest thinking that is tearing up the old paradigm.

Everything from string theory to particle theory (don't ask me what they are-ask Fresco and Thomas)...all the latest thinking that is tearing up the old paradigm.

But remember, that when I say the past is closed (because it has already happened) and the future is open (because it is hasn't happened yet), that is only how MY nervous system reacts to it. My nervous system may be reacting/expressing only its own unconditioned nature, and the so-called "facts" it is responding to may be problematical, only the expression of my cultural conditioning.

Some of the more philosophic interpretations of string theory suggest that all is ultimately one.
This guy has some interesting ideas about quantum physics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s42mrdhKwRA

Cyracuz, I couldn't download your youtube; it caused my mac to shut down. Perhaps it's a practical demonstration in quantum physics?

The link is to a guy named Amit Goswami talking about quantum physics and consciousness. His explanation of consciousness is something I would expect to hear from a buddhist thinker.

Perhaps searching youtube for "amit goswami quantum physics & consciousness" on a mac will lead you to a mac friendly version of the video?

Is 5 random?

Depends. By definition, randomness is a property of process which follows the uniform distribution. So if an "event" occurs over time such that each outcome is equally likely, then we say it is random.

It doesn't mean there is this unknowable mystery...it's simply unknowable to us because it is impossible to make exact measurements of everything involved.

Same reason why the weather is not random 1 hour from now...but it is random 356 days from now.

Or the stock market might be predictable in terms of movements an hour from now, but not 4567 hours from now.