# Randomness and free will......... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 21, 2005, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162 "2005-11-21T23:09:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/81 "2005-11-30T15:34:41Z")
> [@](#): > > And human knowledge is certain on this inference? It is not an _inference_, it is an _observation_: the spins are _observed_ precisely as though the variable **changed in mid flight, back _then_**! Yet again, this is not us merely being unaware of what the variables **happen to _be_**. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/82 "2005-11-30T19:32:43Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > It is not an _inference_, it is an _observation_: the spins are _observed_ precisely as though the variable **changed in mid flight, back _then_**! I was referring to your contention that this occurence indicates ontological randomness – “_could not act retroactivley_”. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/83 "2005-11-30T20:51:01Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > I was referring to your contention that this occurence indicates ontological randomness – “_could not act retroactivley_”. _Ontological_ randomness? What the heck is that? You know I’m a [physicalist](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/), and therefore that I think that [ontology is a bunch of hooey](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4599618&postcount=6). I’ve told you the physics experiment, and the physics conclusion. Dress it up in whatever language pushes your buttons. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/84 "2005-12-01T13:33:24Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > _Ontological_ randomness? What the heck is that? You know I’m a [physicalist](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/), and therefore that I think that [ontology is a bunch of hooey](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4599618&postcount=6). > . Umm, ontology is about the nature of being. Physicalism is itself an ontological statement. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/85 "2005-12-01T13:42:23Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > Umm, ontology is about the nature of being. Physicalism is itself an ontological statement. Only insofar as it declares ontology irrelevant. Just because anything can be translated into Klingon does bestow any _utility_ upon learning Klingon. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/86 "2005-12-01T13:57:08Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Only insofar as it declares ontology irrelevant. How so? Physicalism is an ontological assertion. Nothing in there about being irrelevant. Someone’s ontological framework may include supernatural elements, but ontology _per se_ has nothing to do with transcendant matters. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/87 "2005-12-01T14:49:05Z")
> [@Gyan](#): > > ontology per se has nothing to do with transcendant matters. Ontology is [solely](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dependence-ontological/) to do with ‘transcendent’, metaphysical matters. That which can be known _epistemically_ is ontologically [irrelelevant](http://home.mira.net/~andy/seminars/neville.htm). ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/88 "2005-12-01T16:07:58Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > That which can be known _epistemically_ is ontologically [irrelelevant](http://home.mira.net/~andy/seminars/neville.htm). And the status of physicalism or solipsism can’t be resolved epistemically. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/89 "2005-12-01T16:15:55Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > And the status of physicalism or solipsism can’t be resolved epistemically. Or indeed, any other way: all we can do is send screen-shapes to each other. I’ve provided umpteen links, and you’re free to interpret them any way you choose. Call it all whatever you like - translate it into Welsh or something if that provides words which you prefer the sound of. As ever, I leave you the last one-liner on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2005, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162/90 "2005-12-01T23:22:59Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Or indeed, any other way 1)You agree that physicalism can’t be known to be true epistemically 2)You said, “That which can be known epistemically is ontologically irrelelevant[sic].” Hence, physicalism, I presume, is not ontologically irrelevant. 3)But earlier, you said that physicalism “declares ontology irrelevant.” --and-- “You know I’m a physicalist, and therefore that I think that ontology is a bunch of hooey.” Isn’t this inconsistent? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/randomness-and-free-will/332162.md?page=4)