With Or Without A Creator Does Man Every Have "free Will"

[Mattnxtc 0]

Wow. If anyone can make any sense out of what he's saying, please interpret for me.

sorry i thought you understood all that i was talkin about...let me re explain it in more detailLet me define things for u:utility - whatever makes us happy. choices - set of choices that we have. Now our decisions are always based on our desire to meet a specific utility. This can vary all the time but that is of no consequence. Every situation has a utility that we would most like to achieve. Next we can look at our choice set for all intensive purposes this is infinite. There are millions upon millions of possible choices we can make but the great majority are either negative or unattainable with the means we have so they are tossed out. So we are in actuality left with just a few logical choices. Now it is my assertion that if outsiders could see the knowledge that exists on our heads, they could easily deduce exactly what we will do every move. Why? B/c we always will move towards what gives us the greatest utility at any specific moment. Following this line of reasoning, if this is true then we either do or dont have free will. You decide

[crowTrobot 2]

Now it is my assertion that if outsiders could see the knowledge that exists on our heads, they could easily deduce exactly what we will do every move. Why? B/c we always will move towards what gives us the greatest utility at any specific moment. Following this line of reasoning, if this is true then we either do or dont have free will. You decide

obviously if the first paragraph is true we don't have free will, but there's already been 3 threads wasted trying to explain that to you.

[copernicus 0]

sorry i thought you understood all that i was talkin about...let me re explain it in more detailLet me define things for u:utility - whatever makes us happy. this is too narrow a definition of utility but broadening doesnt change your line of reasoning so I dont think you would object in saying that utility is what the individual perceives to result in the greatest good (or least harm), either to himself or to others, whichever he judges to be more important.choices - set of choices that we have. I dont believe you really want to use choices in this context, since choices imply free will. I think you mean decisions or alternativesNow our decisions are always based on our desire to meet a specific utility. This can vary all the time but that is of no consequence. Every situation has a utility that we would most like to achieve. This statement isnt necessarily true. Many decsions are made without ample consideration of utility ("on whim"), many decisions are made that are believed to have no consequence (but more thought would have led to the realization that they do), and many decisions are made irrationaly (ie despite that they are recognized to have lesser utility).Next we can look at our choice set for all intensive purposes this is infinite. The correct phrase is "for all intents and purpsoes". I also dont agree that there are infinite alternatives. If an infinite number of alternatives needed to be recognized as either negative or unattainable (jumping ahead to your next statement), then it would take an infinite amount of time to make a single decision and we would be stuck in a quicksand of decision making.There are millions upon millions of possible choices we can make but the great majority are either negative or unattainable with the means we have so they are tossed out. So we are in actuality left with just a few logical choices. Now it is my assertion that if outsiders could see the knowledge that exists on our heads, they could easily deduce exactly what we will do every move. Why? B/c we always will move towards what gives us the greatest utility at any specific moment. a conclusion based on a faulty premise as shown above. It is also based on a conditional (if outsiders could see the knowledge that exists....) that is necessary to reach the conclusion. Any necessary conditional has to stand on its own (ie be provable or indisputable), which this one cant. Eg: "If we know the most direct path from home to Foxwoods, and if Zebras can fly and carry passengers, then we can take the next available Zebra to Foxwoods." Thank you for the tip, but I think I'll drive rather than rely on a statement that is logically true IF the conditional is true, but fails since the conditional is untrue. I havent formally studied logic in years, but I assume there is a name for the fallacy of basing conclusions on faulty conditionals. Following this line of reasoning, if this is true then we either do or dont have free will. You decidethe line of reasoning died at the faulty premise and conditional. The other problem with your argument is that it is self-fulfilling..ie it is designed to come the conclusion it is trying to prove. Your premise ensures the conclusion that there is no free will because you have imposed an immutable decision criteria ("maximum utility"), thereby eliminating any decision making.

[copernicus 0]

BTW, while free will is an interesting philosophical issue, it is one of no consequence.As noted in the OP, there can be free will with or without a creator, and there can be a creator with or without the existence of free will. So, there are no religoius consequences.What about impact on our daily lives? Again, no consequence.We live our lives making decisions, and it appears to us as if we have free will. If there is free will, then everything is consistent, and we go on making decisions the same way we always have.If there is no free will, we certainly live under the illusion of having free will. If we wake up tomorrow and "decide" there is no free will we really didnt make that decision..it was predestined, as will every future decision. We cant even decide not to make any decisions, claiming that we have no choice so why bother, because we dont have the ability to decide not to make any decisions.Therefore there is no impact on the way we conduct our lives, we will do what we were destined to do.Now what if it is somehow PROVEN there is no free will. We ignore that fact, and go on the way were are destined to go on. Or we can recognize that since the illusion of free will was so strong, but just an illusion, that we cannot rely on the "reality" of anything..all may be illusion.So what? We can stew over illusion vs reality as much as we want, but since we have no free will, we will just do what we were destined to do anyway.In summary....free will or no free will? Who cares.

[Mattnxtc 0]

this is too narrow a definition of utility but broadening doesnt change your line of reasoning so I dont think you would object in saying that utility is what the individual perceives to result in the greatest good (or least harm), either to himself or to others, whichever he judges to be more important.

not in the least is this to narrow and all you did was redefine and actually narrow utility to what you want it to be. Still doesnt change anything

I dont believe you really want to use choices in this context, since choices imply free will. I think you mean decisions or alternatives

again you do nothing except change words that still mean the same. Have I ever said that i think we dont have free will? I believe we do have free will. I am merely showing that with or without a God the logic is still the same.

This statement isnt necessarily true. Many decsions are made without ample consideration of utility ("on whim"), many decisions are made that are believed to have no consequence (but more thought would have led to the realization that they do), and many decisions are made irrationaly (ie despite that they are recognized to have lesser utility).

Your statement is false. People say that they "choose on a whim" but this really isnt true is it. There is always a justification for what they do. If you asked a poker player why he chose to play a hand or not to play a hand he will have reasons. Now we of course dont always analyze things before we do something but that doesnt mean that we havent already "preprogrammed" ourself to do that action.

a conclusion based on a faulty premise as shown above. It is also based on a conditional (if outsiders could see the knowledge that exists....) that is necessary to reach the conclusion. Any necessary conditional has to stand on its own (ie be provable or indisputable), which this one cant. Eg: "If we know the most direct path from home to Foxwoods, and if Zebras can fly and carry passengers, then we can take the next available Zebra to Foxwoods." Thank you for the tip, but I think I'll drive rather than rely on a statement that is logically true IF the conditional is true, but fails since the conditional is untrue. I havent formally studied logic in years, but I assume there is a name for the fallacy of basing conclusions on faulty conditionals.

so what if it is based on a condition? The condition merely supports the idea that if there is a God who is all knowing, then he always knows what your going to do. My theory supports the idea that we can have free will but also have a being that is all knowing. that is merely the point. That if we have enough information about anything we can "know" the outcome before it happens. So far all you have done is continued to support my idea.

The other problem with your argument is that it is self-fulfilling..ie it is designed to come the conclusion it is trying to prove. Your premise ensures the conclusion that there is no free will because you have imposed an immutable decision criteria ("maximum utility"), thereby eliminating any decision making.

whats ironic is that this is the conclusion you predetermined I was coming to based on faulty knowledge. If you had merely asked I would have told you what conclusion I was going for. So you in fact have again shown my thoughts to be correct b/c the conclusion you predetermined was false. Thanks for playin

[copernicus 0]

not in the least is this to narrow and all you did was redefine and actually narrow utility to what you want it to be. Still doesnt change anythingagain you do nothing except change words that still mean the same. Have I ever said that i think we dont have free will? I believe we do have free will. I am merely showing that with or without a God the logic is still the same. Your statement is false. People say that they "choose on a whim" but this really isnt true is it. There is always a justification for what they do. If you asked a poker player why he chose to play a hand or not to play a hand he will have reasons. Now we of course dont always analyze things before we do something but that doesnt mean that we havent already "preprogrammed" ourself to do that action. so what if it is based on a condition? The condition merely supports the idea that if there is a God who is all knowing, then he always knows what your going to do. My theory supports the idea that we can have free will but also have a being that is all knowing. that is merely the point. That if we have enough information about anything we can "know" the outcome before it happens. So far all you have done is continued to support my idea. whats ironic is that this is the conclusion you predetermined I was coming to based on faulty knowledge. If you had merely asked I would have told you what conclusion I was going for. So you in fact have again shown my thoughts to be correct b/c the conclusion you predetermined was false. Thanks for playin

[copernicus 0]

not in the least is this to narrow and all you did was redefine and actually narrow utility to what you want it to be. I didnt narrow it, I broadened it beyond "what makes you happy". A decision may make me sad even though it has greater utility.Still doesnt change anythingagain you do nothing except change words that still mean the same.they dont mean the same thing Have I ever said that i think we dont have free will? I believe we do have free will. I am merely showing that with or without a God the logic is still the same. none of your arguments have included the concept of god, so you havent shown that the logic is the same with or without god. Silence is not demonstration.Your statement is false. People say that they "choose on a whim" but this really isnt true is it. There is always a justification for what they do. No, there isnt always justification for what people do, for the reasons I stated in my prior post.If you asked a poker player why he chose to play a hand or not to play a hand he will have reasons. Now we of course dont always analyze things before we do something but that doesnt mean that we havent already "preprogrammed" ourself to do that action. so what if it is based on a condition? If it is a false condition it cannot be used to support a conclusion. That is a logical fallacy.The condition merely supports the idea that if there is a God who is all knowing, then he always knows what your going to do. My theory supports the idea that we can have free will but also have a being that is all knowing. that is merely the point. No it doesnt support or deny anything about god. In fact you were very careful to object that you didnt say there WAS an outside being that could know everything about someone else, just that you were making a conclusion IF there happened to be such a being. You cant even keep your own arguments straight.That if we have enough information about anything we can "know" the outcome before it happens. So far all you have done is continued to support my idea. whats ironic is that this is the conclusion you predetermined I was coming to based on faulty knowledge. If you had merely asked I would have told you what conclusion I was going for. There was no need to ask, as I said your hyptohesis could only lead to one conclusion, it was self fulfillingSo you in fact have again shown my thoughts to be correct b/c the conclusion you predetermined was false.There can be no conclusion from your arguments because they are based on a faulty hypothesis. If your own personal conclusion is that there is free will you have done nothing to support itThanks for playinYou arent even in the game you claim to be in

[crowTrobot 2]

BTW, while free will is an interesting philosophical issue, it is one of no consequence.

it's of vital consequence to the notion that the christian god is fair and just in judging us.

[copernicus 0]

it's of vital consequence to the notion that the christian god is fair and just in judging us.

That presupposes that there is a god, that the god is far and just, and that god judges us.If you presuppose those conditions you have also presupposed free will...free will is not a consequence of those conditions, it is inherent in them.

[Mattnxtc 0]

I didnt narrow it, I broadened it beyond "what makes you happy". A decision may make me sad even though it has greater utility.

a decision may have a negative outcome..but that doesnt change the fact that it is the decision that will make you most happy. for instance if you admit that you cheated on a test. The outcome is bad but you will feel better b/c you chose to own up to it.

none of your arguments have included the concept of god, so you havent shown that the logic is the same with or without god. Silence is not demonstration.

Not correct again. I think this is a case of you merely not having been around here long enough. There was a thread where free will came up in terms of God being all knowing. I am merely showing that we dont even need to have a God in the equation at all to see the same effect.

No it doesnt support or deny anything about god. In fact you were very careful to object that you didnt say there WAS an outside being that could know everything about someone else, just that you were making a conclusion IF there happened to be such a being. You cant even keep your own arguments straight.

very wrong. and again I think its b/c you havent been around long enough. The general consensus on the board is that if God is some how all knowing then we cant have free will. I have shown that if we have enough knowledge about any one person, we can easily define his utility and what decision he will make based on that utility. I again left God out to show that He doesnt necessarily need to be in the equation for it to be true. As long as we have enough information we can always pick a guys correct path. Now of course we dont have enough information as people but thats not the point. If we did have the information it woudl be easy to know a persons decisions.

There was no need to ask, as I said your hyptohesis could only lead to one conclusion, it was self fulfilling

well then maybe that means my hypothesis is correct? That with enough information about a guy and his utility we can make his decision for him? You have yet to give proof of any reason for the hypothesis to be wrong. That must mean it is correct wouldnt you say?

There can be no conclusion from your arguments because they are based on a faulty hypothesis. If your own personal conclusion is that there is free will you have done nothing to support it

wrong. you say my hypothesis is faulty merely b/c you cant prove it wrong. It is a correct hypothesis. Sure it is built on the fact that we need to have knowledge we wont normally have. But that doesnt make it faulty. Merely means that we generally wont have the knowledge necessary to fully understand a persons utility

You arent even in the game you claim to be in

actually your a secon half subsititute that missed the first half and has no clue whats going on...thats all

[copernicus 0]

a decision may have a negative outcome..but that doesnt change the fact that it is the decision that will make you most happy. for instance if you admit that you cheated on a test. The outcome is bad but you will feel better b/c you chose to own up to it. Not correct again. I think this is a case of you merely not having been around here long enough. There was a thread where free will came up in terms of God being all knowing. I am merely showing that we dont even need to have a God in the equation at all to see the same effect. very wrong. and again I think its b/c you havent been around long enough. The general consensus on the board is that if God is some how all knowing then we cant have free will. I have shown that if we have enough knowledge about any one person, we can easily define his utility and what decision he will make based on that utility. I again left God out to show that He doesnt necessarily need to be in the equation for it to be true. As long as we have enough information we can always pick a guys correct path. Now of course we dont have enough information as people but thats not the point. If we did have the information it woudl be easy to know a persons decisions. well then maybe that means my hypothesis is correct? That with enough information about a guy and his utility we can make his decision for him? You have yet to give proof of any reason for the hypothesis to be wrong. That must mean it is correct wouldnt you say? wrong. you say my hypothesis is faulty merely b/c you cant prove it wrong. It is a correct hypothesis. Sure it is built on the fact that we need to have knowledge we wont normally have. But that doesnt make it faulty. Merely means that we generally wont have the knowledge necessary to fully understand a persons utilityactually your a secon half subsititute that missed the first half and has no clue whats going on...thats all

If I had to go to every other thread you have posted in to know all of your positions there wouldnt be enough time in the day for important things. If you dont want to take the time to present all of your arguments in one place, please dont waste ours by making us guess.And I have shown your hypothesis to be faulty, since it includes the proposition that all decisions are made with maximum utility:Many decsions are made without ample consideration of utility ("on whim"), many decisions are made that are believed to have no consequence (but more thought would have led to the realization that they do), and many decisions are made irrationaly (ie despite that they are recognized to have lesser utility).I see examples of these every day, just because you deny them doesnt make that less true.

[crowTrobot 2]

That presupposes that there is a god, that the god is far and just, and that god judges us.If you presuppose those conditions you have also presupposed free will...free will is not a consequence of those conditions, it is inherent in them.

that's what i said. non-predeterministic christians must believe in free will (MATT!) or their beliefs are contradictory. in that sense free will is certainly of consequence.

[Mattnxtc 0]

Many decsions are made without ample consideration of utility ("on whim"), many decisions are made that are believed to have no consequence (but more thought would have led to the realization that they do), and many decisions are made irrationaly (ie despite that they are recognized to have lesser utility).

I would contend that "on a whim" is a myth. You may make a decision without putting a bunch of thought into it but that doesnt mean you have already predetermined your decision long before this moment. Humans dont do random on our own. We can do random when we exhert external forces but all that does is switch the decision maker. We still arent random sorry. Your assertion though a good try doesnt hold up. You cant give examples of "on a whim" where some logical process was nonexistant. Irrationality in the eyes of an outsider does not mean it is irrational to the person. A person who things he is seeing a ghost is irrational by our standards but he thinks he has this knowledge so even then we can logically deduce his actions.

that's what i said. non-predeterministic christians must believe in free will (MATT!) or their beliefs are contradictory. in that sense free will is certainly of consequence.

I like how you speak for me crow. I have already shown that even without a God you can make the case that there is always one choice we will always pick. Therefore you can decide if thats considered free will or not.

[copernicus 0]

that's what i said. non-predeterministic christians must believe in free will (MATT!) or their beliefs are contradictory. in that sense free will is certainly of consequence.

That sounds circular also, if "non-predeterministic" means what it sounds like it means.."not believing in free will".Whether or not it is of consequence then depends on whether the "non-deterministic" portion of their beliefs are of consequence to them. I dont see why it would be, since I would expect that "Christian" is by far the more important portion of their beliefs. Free will is more of a philosophical issue than a religous one, unless Im missing something.

I have already shown that even without a God you can make the case that there is always one choice we will always pick. Therefore you can decide if thats considered free will or not.

Uhhh,. no. You have asserted that. You havent made the case for that assertion.

[crowTrobot 2]

I like how you speak for me crow. I have already shown that even without a God you can make the case that there is always one choice we will always pick. Therefore you can decide if thats considered free will or not.

i was speaking at you, not for you.if you can explain how we can possibly have free will when everything we do is inevitable i'll gladly shut up.

[crowTrobot 2]

That sounds circular also, if "non-predeterministic" means what it sounds like it means.."not believing in free will".

lol it means the opposite. predeterminism = you are not free to affect whether you are saved, god has already "predestined" you to be saved (calvinist doctrine).. or not.

Whether or not it is of consequence then depends on whether the "non-deterministic" portion of their beliefs are of consequence to them. I dont see why it would be, since I would expect that "Christian" is by far the more important portion of their beliefs. Free will is more of a philosophical issue than a religous one, unless Im missing something.

it's of no consequence to a calvinist, but otherwise it's a huge religious issue when it comes to the more generally believed christian plan of salvation, which requires free will. otherwise if our choices are just illusional what's the point?

[copernicus 0]

lol it means the opposite. predeterminism = you are not free to affect whether you are saved, god has already "predestined" you to be saved (calvinist doctrine).. or not. it's of no consequence to a calvinist, but otherwise it's a huge religious issue when it comes to the more generally believed christian plan of salvation, which requires free will. otherwise if our choices are just illusional what's the point?

i think your first statement confirmed mine :)ahhh on the second...forgot about the salvation angle, thats what i get for being a heathen. So I opt for the "otherwise"...either we have free will, or we have the illusion of free will and everything may be illusion, so whats the point.Actually, if its all illusion, at least matt and his inability to apply the rules of logic and his lack of understanding of natural selection may be an illusion, which raises humanity a notch in my worldview.

[timwakefield 68]

You cant give examples of "on a whim" where some logical process was nonexistant.

I already did, and I will use the same example again:Heads or tails?Are you really telling me that the answer to this question can be determined from past experience?

[BuffDan 0]

I already did, and I will use the same example again:Heads or tails?Are you really telling me that the answer to this question can be determined from past experience?

I can't speak for anyone else, but yes, I do think, in principle, it would be possible to study every past experience that built up in your head and lead you to answer this question. The interesting thing would be to study whether your answer really was on a whim or not. Perhaps you chose heads because the last three times you chose tails and it didn't work. More likely there is a much more complicated pattern, but ultimately I think that by studying every single thought and nueron that has fired in your head, in principle one could determine the thoughts that lead to, say, "what the hell, I'll choose heads this time."I guess it all comes down to whether you believe people can ever do anything "random." I tend to think no. However, as was stated before, this is completely irrelevant, since I am still acting and typing as if I have the free will to choose to, whether or not it has already been determined exactly what I will type.

[FullMontyM1 0]

I can't speak for anyone else, but yes, I do think, in principle, it would be possible to study every past experience that built up in your head and lead you to answer this question. The interesting thing would be to study whether your answer really was on a whim or not. Perhaps you chose heads because the last three times you chose tails and it didn't work. More likely there is a much more complicated pattern, but ultimately I think that by studying every single thought and nueron that has fired in your head, in principle one could determine the thoughts that lead to, say, "what the hell, I'll choose heads this time."I guess it all comes down to whether you believe people can ever do anything "random." I tend to think no. However, as was stated before, this is completely irrelevant, since I am still acting and typing as if I have the free will to choose to, whether or not it has already been determined exactly what I will type.

Would it be random if someone said that they would choose heads or tails based on the outcome of a coin flip, choosing the result that came up on the first coinflip for the second one?Monty

[brvheart 1,755]

My guess is that he is trying to get us to agree that since all decisions will be those that maximize utility, and if we have a perfect "utility" matrix for the individual then we can predict exactly what he will do. But if it can be pre-determined then it isnt truly free.The problem with this argument is, of course, that the "utility matrix" itself is changeable and subject to free will (as you said..maybe to be changed on a whim"), so the basic premise is faulty.I also love the Newtonian based argument that there can be no free will because if the positions and velocities of everything are known then Newtons laws tell you where they will always be...ie no free will.Even ignoring quantum effects (that I dont believe are applicable to matter big enough to be visible to us anyway), the positions and velocities of everything are only predictable when not subjected to external forces. At the brain chemistry level the act of making a choice instantiates an electrical or chemical force, disrupting whatever the predicted motions would be.Those anti-free will arguments hold no water in light of our rudimentary but growing knowledge of brain function and the chemeical/electrical effects of thinking.

you misspelled Chemical... dumbass.

[BuffDan 0]

Would it be random if someone said that they would choose heads or tails based on the outcome of a coin flip, choosing the result that came up on the first coinflip for the second one?Monty

Well I could argue that a coin flip isn't really random... but I think that misses the point. What I will argue is that their choice itself isn't random, as their choice to base their decision on the next coinflip could be predicted if one had perfect knowledge of all past thoughts, etc. The idea is to be random, they are deterministically, so to speak, choosing to base their decision on another random process, but they themselves are not being random. The choice to use a coin flip to become random came from previous knowledge that coinflips are for all intents and purposes random and from past experiences at trying to be random, which I would argue could be perfectly predicted, again, given the ideal of perfect information about their past thoughts.

[FullMontyM1 0]

Well I could argue that a coin flip isn't really random... but I think that misses the point. What I will argue is that their choice itself isn't random, as their choice to base their decision on the next coinflip could be predicted if one had perfect knowledge of all past thoughts, etc. The idea is to be random, they are deterministically, so to speak, choosing to base their decision on another random process, but they themselves are not being random. The choice to use a coin flip to become random came from previous knowledge that coinflips are for all intents and purposes random and from past experiences at trying to be random, which I would argue could be perfectly predicted, again, given the ideal of perfect information about their past thoughts.

I may be misunderstanding your point, but here is what I gather:Basically, you are saying everything can be traced back to a first cause though a long chain, and therefore, there are no random events, because for an event to be random it must not have a causal chain leading to said event. And, further, that our attempt to exert free will (Be RANDOM) is the same thing as the poker site's attempt to generate random seeds by using all of the user-input, etc. etc. etc. A massive amount of information gathered together to simulate randomness.Let's take the dictionary definition of random:ran·dom ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rndm) adj. 1) Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements.Your argument, I think, successfully defeats this definition of random. Even in trying to be random, the actor has a purpose or objective, and the manner in which he attempts to be random will probably have a pattern.2) Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution. This definition is unbeatable, but it's also a crappy definition. Our actor is random according to this definition, but this definition is basically: Something is random if it is random when we draw it on a piece of paper. Or even more simply stated, something is random when it is random. Useless definition.3) Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance. (Leaving aside the last definition's example as completely retarded)This definition needs some more examination.Before I go head over heels, is this all an accurate summation?Monty

[crowTrobot 2]

the fine complexity underlying our apparent free will may be irrelevant, because free will may be a coarse, scale-dependant *emergent* property - potentially something more than the sum of its parts.

[copernicus 0]

I may be misunderstanding your point, but here is what I gather:Basically, you are saying everything can be traced back to a first cause though a long chain, and therefore, there are no random events, because for an event to be random it must not have a causal chain leading to said event. And, further, that our attempt to exert free will (Be RANDOM) is the same thing as the poker site's attempt to generate random seeds by using all of the user-input, etc. etc. etc. A massive amount of information gathered together to simulate randomness.Let's take the dictionary definition of random:ran·dom ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rndm) adj. 1) Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements.Your argument, I think, successfully defeats this definition of random. Even in trying to be random, the actor has a purpose or objective, and the manner in which he attempts to be random will probably have a pattern.Im not sure this definition is defeated. While the actor has a purpose (randomization or expression of free will) the mechanics and results dont need to have a pattern if a sufficiently complex RNG is used, and I think most would agree that the brain has enough complex processes going on that if we needed a random number at some level, we could harness one. Even at a lower level of complexity, take Annie Dukes RoShamBo strategy of using the numbers on a dollar bill to generate her moves. Even though the bills were orignially printed in a non random manner, well circulated bills have been shuffled so thoroughly that her strategy is random and non-expolitable.2) Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution. This definition is unbeatable, but it's also a crappy definition. Our actor is random according to this definition, but this definition is basically: Something is random if it is random when we draw it on a piece of paper. Or even more simply stated, something is random when it is random. Useless definition.I think you dismiss this too readily, although the wording of the definition could be clearer by adding "as opposed to being described by a static distribution" (or whatever the correct mathematical term for a distribution where X always results in the same Y).3) Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance. (Leaving aside the last definition's example as completely retarded)they dont get much more retarded than this, do they?This definition needs some more examination.Before I go head over heels, is this all an accurate summation?Monty

you misspelled Chemical... dumbass.

Thanks for your valuable contribution to the thread.