>>13832867First of all, i warn you to be careful with "google it" or "science says that" arguments, it's like dogmatizing science, which makes it irrefutable just like religion.
Anyway, I did a little research on indeterminism and randomness, and to be honest indeterminism sounds more religious than determinism.
>a physical object has an ontologically undetermined component that is not due to the epistemological limitations of physicists' understanding. The uncertainty principle, then, would not necessarily be due to hidden variables but to an indeterminism in nature itselfWhich is very related to the "God can break his own laws" thing. It states that there must be an omniscient deity/metaphysical logos operating reality as he wish and these random events are traces of his actions.
But if your approach is atheistic indeterminism (which is what I think so), then I'd say you're being illogical, and scientists with the same mindset as you are interrupting the development of science with useless theories and arguments like "hey that experiment came with an unpredictable result, therefore it reinforces my indeterministic theory and you're wrong huuurrr".
Since we aren't going anywhere just throwing arguments away, we gotta first go to principles and know our definitions
>I'd really like to know your definition of randomOntologically, Random is unpredictability. Random is the belief of a thing deciding it's own conditions despite causality or any previous events.
The thing is, its inexistent. Hidden variables are what determines the bigger object. And if you say "hidden variables are random" then again, it's not, there are other factors influencing them.
Socially, random is a concept related with ignorance. As I've said before it's related with linguistics and lack of deeper understanding, which is what I think you're focusing on.
Continues...
