determinism versus indeterminism

[Purple Rabbit]

Purple Rabbit wrote
(quote)
I didn't exclude randomness from nature. I gave an example (Casimir) of a phenomenon that to the best of current scientifc knowledge is purely random in nature.(unquote)

PR hi
It seems to be a very interesting new discovered phenomenon about which scientists are still debating.
What bothers me in your affirmation is the expression of "pure random".

I don't know of any phenomenon in nature which can be considered as "pure".

You should not focus on one word in my quote and ignore the rest of it. I clearly stated that it is random to the best of current scientifc knowledge. And as I have stated many times earlier elsewhere on this forum, scientific kowledge, much like any human knowledge, is not proven absolute. This means that whenever cutting edge science establishes a 'fact', there is room for some doubt, however small. In the case of randomness of the Casimir effect there is no empirical basis for doubt, in other words, doubt is based on none other than sheer speculation. I added the phrase "to the best of current scientifc knowledge" just to express that. So you are of course free to speculate, but when you stick to the facts that science present us the Casimir effect is random. Casimir's starting point was the predicted forming of virtual particles as a consequence of the thoroughly tested Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. A virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space as a result of applying Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle on the vacuum. In fact Casimir's attempt was to test the applicability of the principle on the vacuum, not an attempt to find virtual particles.

Take phenomena such as gravity,eloctromagnetic fields,chemical reactions, lest of all phenomena of life,none of them are pure but mixed up in each event taking place in space/time with other major or minor phenomena.
(Even when you come out of the shower you are not entirely pure)

You are mixing synonymous meanings of the word pure. My use of the word is related to the state of scientific knowledge only.

Take the most basic law of measuring of material entities such as
1+1=2,not as an abstract mathematic expression but as a mode of summing up measurable identical entities.
Well even this most simple expression can by no means by considered as pure because identical entities exist only within conventional limits and are never absolute identical being always placed in other positions within space/time coordinates.

This is like saying, no human knowledge is absolute, with which I already agreed.

Now, even if you did not so exactly mean the expression of "pure" the meanning of randomness for the Casimir phenomenon as presented by you seems to lead to an instantly borne material entity out of nothing previous.
Such a conception contradicts all what we know and believe about laws of the material world as we totally deny instantaneous creation.
It could be manna from heaven for creationists who will caress their bellies and cry out for all to hear "we told you that after all God exists".

You should definitely read the link I provided before attempting digressing on the subject. Energy is conserved with the creation of a matter-antimatter pair. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle predicts energy fluctuations of the vacuum and leaves room for short lived virtual particle pairs. To deny quantum fluctuations is to deny the heart of quantum mechanics. Be sure on what quest you decide to embark. And yes quantum mechanics is indeed very counterintuitive, it's quite astonishing that humans at all have been able to arrive at it.