3good5you t1_jd7vs34 wrote on March 22, 2023 at 1:58 PM

Reply to comment by Michamus in In-depth interview with Gregg Caruso, free-will skeptic by fatsosis

That is true, however you could say that about any scientific theory. As long as there is no sign of it not being true and the theory withstanding every known test, it might as well be true. The philosophical standpoint could be that we never know the truth but only get better models, which fit our observations, and I would agree, but I don‘t see how that is helping anyone and what to learn from it.

Maybe I‘m just not made to discuss with your philosophical standpoints, being heavily biased with a masters degree in particle physics. This is my first time reading some comments in this sub and actually commenting, so I‘d love to hear what you think and why. :)

Michamus t1_jd8td42 wrote on March 22, 2023 at 5:34 PM

Saying it is truly random has a higher burden of proof than saying it appears random. Sure, it may truly be random, but currently we just don’t know enough to say one way or another. If it really is random, it’ll be our first discovery of a truly random event.

3good5you t1_jd8zqzf wrote on March 22, 2023 at 6:14 PM

I see what you mean, in general, but that would lead us to basically not being able to say anything is something, wouldn't it?

Michamus t1_jd90n5g wrote on March 22, 2023 at 6:19 PM

Not really. We just don’t have enough data to conclusively make a claim like that. Especially since historically when claims of true randomness have been made, they’ve turned out to not be the case. It would be interesting if it turned out to actually be the case, though. Once we actually start relying on it functionally, we’ll know for certain if it’s really the case.