Incorrect. The article that I linked to and quoted used the word "random" to describe unpredictable events.
I'm not interested in arguing with you about whether the definition of "random" has undergone recent change in order to "trick" creationists nor look up ancient definitions to try and refute a statement about word meanings which I am sure you know to be false. I can, by my own eye (ear?) witness to the fact that the scientific definition of "random" has been what we tell you it is for at least 60 years.
Hey hey saints
Please excuse me, I will accept this definition. I have 2 reliable sources from 2 brothers in Christ. Brother Speedwell was kind enough to supply a book for reference.
"Random--predictable by no known algorithm." --The Mathematics of Physics and Modern Engineering, Sokolnikov and Reheffer (1958
I managed to get a legit free pdf off the web.
Full text of "Mathematics Of Physics And Modern Engineering"
- please correct me if this is not the same text -
I typed random and found 55 instances mainly to do with probability but there was a reference to computing and heat molecules. ... anyways
P622 random process defintion
"A process is random if it is impossible to predict the final state from the initial state (as, for example, in a toss of a coin or a die)" - 1958
So i was wrong and i was the source of the miscommunication.
thank you brothers
@sfs and
@Speedwell.
I think it's wrong, just like every other attempt you make to stitch dictionary definitions together -- that's not how you understand concepts. A random process is a series of connected events that has unpredictable outcomes. That's what scientists are talking about. Do you understand that concept or not? Don't glue together definitions -- do you understand that concept or not?
Now i have the book
"The Mathematics of Physics and Modern Engineering, Sokolnikov and Reheffer (1958)"
i can see clearly where you 2 are coming from. In science, a random process is called random not because of the pattern or series of steps but by the outcome. The outcome is unpredictable such as die or toss flip or even cards.
If this is true then you'd better adopt a different approach, because so far you're not drawing out anything but exasperation.
Please forgive me for this unwarranted exasperation.
i do not mean to do such a thing.
It's a process because the evaporation, transportation, condensation, and falling of water are a "continuous and regular action or succession of actions occurring . . . in a definite manner, and having a particular result or outcome", and it's random because the specific outcomes are unpredictable.
So here is where i wanted to get to
The outcome being predictable is not something i am trying to explore. I have learnt from you that the definition of random process is one with a predictable outcome.
My bad ;p
Lets consider the die that rolls or the coin that is flipped. The outcome may be unpredictable but the process involves a hand or human that is a catalyst for the event?
Rain drops may be unpredictable to where they may land but the process which is the series of events that lead to rain are integral and there is a pattern?
The genetic evidence that humans and chimpanzees descend from a single ancestral species. Given DNA from you and your third cousin, I can tell you that your shared great-great-grandparent existed for the same reason.
Brother speedwell was kind enough to get me a good reference to check out re random process and you supplied a link as well.
What is this genetic evidence you ellude to?
I am a bit leery of creationists who try on the equivocation fallacy and when called out about it complain that scientists are changing definitions for reasons of sophistry.
I think the problem was with me and i did not explain myself adequately, i also used the wrong terminology.
Thank you for your correction brother and thank you for the link.
I like you and hope we can continue in a civil manner. Replies are welcome from you at any time my friend. There is only 2 questions to reply to and i look forward to your reply.
Cheers
You are simply incapable of admitting when you're wrong, aren't you?
