“You keep usin’ dat word; I do not tink it means what you tink it means.”<<
Freaking idiot. I derived the term Stochastism from Stochastic, a scientific concept (thus foreign to you):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic
“In probability theory, a purely stochastic system is one whose state is non-deterministic”
Stochastic processes EVOLVE along non-deterministic lines but are not truly random.
But it isn’t my job to teach ignorant philistines like you. It is just to point out just how ignorant and foolish you are.
Next time you want to display your ignorance, do it with a smaller audience.
>>Freaking idiot. I derived the term Stochastism from Stochastic, a scientific concept (thus foreign to you):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic
“In probability theory, a purely stochastic system is one whose state is non-deterministic”
Stochastic processes EVOLVE along non-deterministic lines but are not truly random.<<
Ooh, you used THAT WORD again! “Stochastic” and every word derived from it mean you don’t have to answer questions because you’re, like, way smarter and more scientific and stuff than we who dare to point out order from chaos, life from non-life, and something from nothing are all impossible. “Stochastic” is the name of a magic wand your fool materialist buddies gave you to wave at me to stop my demolishing your delusion so colossally absurd that you’d have to be an intellectual to fall for it.
Call it “evolution” or a “stochastic process” or whatever you like, it’s all still just materialist mythology. Universes don’t spring into existence from nowhere, life doesn’t evolve from non-life, and single-celled organisms don’t evolve into complex self-aware organisms. Your magic word is fooling no one, you pseudo-scientist.
I apologize for using the term “idiot.”
As I said in a different response I was railing against RL idiots, not you.
But I did use the term “sochastic” properly and I suspect your use was incorrect (My adjustment to “stochastism” may have led you astray — it was an unacknowledged nounism).
In one sense you are right. The notion of stochastic process has scientific utility. For those who wish to peek at the mathematical description, see this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process
However, most everyone on the internet of any persuasion is a “philistine” with respect to understanding, really understanding stochastic process to any degree of usefulness. My uncle was probably one of the few people on the planet who actually worked with such concepts on a daily basis, as he did serious fluid modeling back when computers were just giant collections of relays that could barely outperform modern four-function calculators. He could do in his head what most people even today would be unable to do without significant computing horsepower.
The funny thing is, I never felt like a “philistine” in his presence. He was a quiet, humble, happy man, who distributed Gideon Bibles to hotels. And because he really understood these things, he could explain them to those of us less gifted, in a way that made it easy to grasp the main concept.
But without a brilliant mathematician in your life to help explain these things, it is easy to see how the concept could be degraded by some and even made the basis of a quirky religious theory that embraces randomness as a philosophy and tries to give it respectability by dressing it up in a term of scientific origin.
However, as a tool to evade the essentially deterministic arguments of intelligent design, stochastic process may not be the holy grail you seek. Dembski has written a book called Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, in which he dismantles the case that stochastic process works as a wildcard to escape the effect of deterministic process in biological system. You may be interested.
Peace,
SR