Logic of chance

[DD_8630]

Josef, I fear you do not fully understand what we are talking about here. There is a subtle difference between 'hard to predict' and 'fundamentally unpredictable': we can't make accurate weather forecasts because it's too complex for us to completely model, not because it's inherently indeterminate (as opposed to quantum particles, which really are inherently indeterminate)

I'm sorry but what you maintain here I call it hair splitting.
I am not a scientist ,nor a philosopher but a M.Sc.graduate in electrical engineering and I look at the world in a practical matter and at scientific problems from a technical point of view based on a large experience in technical problems.

Then that is your problem: the world is not as nice and intuitive as electronics would have it.

If you are neither a scientist nor a philosopher, why do you insist on going against the entire community of scientists and philosophers? I, for one, know when to defer to their expertise.

This is my approach also to atheism .
I consider that the ordinary world we are living in, is governed by laws of nature ,devoid of any supernatural influence but in the same time characterized ,each of them (may be that there are also exceptions)by a dual form of order ond disorder.
Disorder is by no means an act of a supernatural force but a result of cause/effect event,only that the effect might be of the type of the uncertainity principle or a result of a not definable great number of causes which according to the Occam's razor principle tansform it in a de facto disorder.
You can consider what I'm saying as not exactly philosophically correct.
May be that the postulation is flawed by some inexact expressions,I don't care.

To say the least. And this brings me back to my first point: you have come into this debate not knowing the correct terminology, conflating your own intuitive guesses at the terms with their actual definition. You talk of chaos, indeterminism, unpredictability, and disorder, as if they are exactly the same thing. Suffice to say, they are not.

So that's why we disagree: our terminology is not the same. What you mean by 'indeterminate' is not what I (nor philosophers, nor my fellow scientists) mean by 'indeterminate'.