Random?

Not everything is random and/or relative…
How about “we are here”…what is random about that…

I assume you are using the ‘unexpectedly great’ meaning of random.
Life is totally random. :smiley:

“life is totally random”-----how do you know that…

Subjective value judgment of course.

But I suspect that you and I are using different definitions of the word ‘random’. :-k

i think so…do you have an example of a non-random
non-life thing…

Well, first: “random” and “relative” are entirely different terms, so you might want to stipulate on which you’d like to focus. Second: we find ourselves thrown into a world without explanation, without purpose.

ran·dom/ˈrandəm/Adjective

  1. Made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.

We have been “made”, we have “happened”, without conscious decision. Perhaps our “happening” involved method, but that method itself involves quite a bit of the random. Obviously, you have an argument in mind to the effect of “we are here non-randomly because…” You need to clarify such a reasoning before this discussion can see itself through.

rel·a·tive/ˈrelətiv/
Adjective: Considered in relation or in proportion to something else.

Surely, you don’t presume humankind to be an ultimate standard by which the rest of existence is to be valued in terms of. In the absence of absolute, objective universals, everything is, indeed, relative.

Gravity isn’t random.

You still have not defined ‘random’.

i am not intelligent enough to define random…

Perhaps interestingly, the word “random” comes from “gallop” - presumably in the sense of running away with itself.

So you could say “we are here” because of a bunch of processes that ran away with themselves and ended up causing us to be here.

Our “being here” is relative to our not being here - and also relative to other things that are here that are not us.

i wonder if lots of happenings have elements of both random and non-random…

The reductionist attitude to data is to recognise the non-random elements, and assume that anomalies are due to noise or error somewhere in the method.

The more contemporary attitude is to also recognise the random elements as part of the results, that there is chaos regardless of the level of accuracy in method.

So, in agreement with the latter attitude I would say that - perhaps all happenings have elements of both random and non-random.