We consider something to be "random" when there is more tha one possible outcome.
We consider something "random" when there is an outcome in which we cannot predict a certain quality associated to said outcome.
If it were not random, dice rolling for example, then it must be destiny. Destiny is when everything is set, isn't it?
Unpredictable and impossible to know unt it actually happens, yea,
Random? No.
Dice rolling isn't random because it can be calculated what number you'd receive if we were able to obtain all variables (the speed/angle you throw it at, the surface the die hits, the exact free fall acceleration, etc.).
Note that when everything is set, it doesn't imply destiny. Destiny suggests that someone knows of all the outcomes
before they have even happened. This suggests that even outcomes in the far future can be known. Determinism, on the other hand, suggests that outcomes within the present tense can theoretically be predicted.
Being unpredictable and impossible to know when a certain outcome happens suggests randomness.
Unless destiny exists, I believe that true randomness does, as well.
So, you're suggesting that perhaps both can coexist?
Randomness exists only on a quantum level. Effectively whenever you can attribute a phenomenon to one quantum state or another, both happen but we are only able to see one of them.
As such randomness exists.
Do you believe this is true randomness? Or perhaps we're not knowledgeable enough to understand what exactly is going on at the quantum level?
I suppose I should add that outside of quantum randomness, in the end our decisions are made by chemical signals in our brain, and since physics and chemistry dictate a certain path of movement for the molecules in our bodies, everything must happen a certain way assuming that quantum physics are incorrect, and atomic-level distortions do not occur.
So, if quantum physics is correct, all our actions are 'random', but give the illusion that they're deterministic. If quantum physics is incorrect, all our actions are purely deterministic. Correct?
Our actions are carried out as a result of the chemicals, but the decisions themselves are ultimately influenced by external stimuli, right?
Good point. What drives said chemicals to come into action? I think focusing on the chemicals is actually focusing on the effects rather than the cause. For example, I may have a lot of serotonin in my brain (which would cause happiness). Now, the argument here is that serotonin is what causes my happiness. However, what caused my serotonin levels to rise up? External stimuli - or perhaps, even internal thoughts. Roughly, the picture is like this:
External stimuli/internal thoughts => Increased serotonin levels in the brain => Happiness
According to this, what's the true cause of the happiness? Not serotonin - not the chemicals. It's more the external stimuli/internal thoughts.
I believe the chemicals we detect are more of a result/effect of something else - perhaps that something else is biological, but it can also not be biological.
Similar to how a computer functions, we can determine that electricity dictates its actions. But this is oversimplifying it. It is, in fact, the user who is dictating the computer's actions. Electricity is merely the 'delivery' vehicle that effectuates said actions.
