does "randomness" exist?

by googlemagoogle 45 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  DannyBloem

  Danny,
  
  I guess we basically agree and I'm sorry to be such a pain in the ass again but:

  he he he, No I enjoy reading your posts. You make nice statements that make things more clear for me. So far from a pain inthe ass
  
  

  ::random probability functions.
  
  All probability functions are only partly random. In other words they are all affected to some extent by arbitrary deterministic tendencies. If these functions were "truly" representing the ultimate nature of randomness (whatever this might be?) there wouldn't be so many of them. The term "random functions" is confusing. Admit that and I'll shut up. ;-)

  I admit. We speak normally about probability functions in quantum physics. (or wave fucntions). I should not have used the word random there.
  For example: you can not say that a electron is at a certain position, you can only speak about a chance that he is. That chance is the probability function. The change on different positions is not equal, it is a normal distribution. When the electron is measured it's position is known exactly, but it interacts. It is called the collapse of the wave function. Can it not be that there is no underlying deterministic process, but that this describes something real random. That the position of the electron when measured is really random without cause? This is thought to be the case, and yes the follow a certain function. Danny
• 

  seattleniceguy

  How can it be shown that any process is truly random?

  To go back to Pole's example in the previous thread about the phone calls coming into a building, clearly there is no randomness at play here at all. The people on the phone are presumably calling for a reason. It only seems random to the occupants of the building because they can't predict the calls. But someone with a comprehensive view of the earth could.

  So now we go back to gas molecules bumping around or radioactive decay. Don't we instantly antiquate ourselves as soon as we say these things are unpredictable or causeless? It seems to me that it is a safer bet to assume that they simply have very complex causes that it is not possible for us to predict, at least not in real-time, and that therefore they seem random.

  I suspect that these things are deterministic, but the universe is already the fastest possible means of calculating future states. So for all practical purposes, they are random for us. Except that they're not. :-)

  SNG
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  cool thread, cool comments!

  i wish i knew more about physics. i'm basically limited to things i read in scientific american and the odd book on string theory.

  but regarding randomness:

  it seems to me (reductionist) that the more we learn about the computational nature of the universe (even black holes have "output"), the more we see that there is no true randomness, but more complex output based on complex input.
• 

  DannyBloem

  I have to disagree that there is no real randomness.

  Quantum physics is based on real randomness. That is that things on the small scale are per definition not predictable, and that there is nothing causing it.

  This is the common explanation, there are some however who disagree.

  More information to be found on this quantum wierdness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_inequality

  Danny
• 

  Elsewhere

  The math behind Quantum Mechanics predicts that true randomness does in fact exist. On top of that there have been many experiments that have verified these QM predictions.

  One way for you to observe a truly random phenomenon would be to observe the emissions of a radioactive material. The release of the radiation is purely random and is impossible to predict.
• 

  Terry

  DEFINE:

  I hate to burst the bubble; but, you actually cannot define RANDOM and make it stick for the practical reason we humans are pattern-seeking mentally.

  Once we decide to do so we can find a "meaningful" pattern in any combination.

  People who see the virgin Mary on burnt grill-cheese toast are among those.

  Neither you nor I can sit down and even write a stream of "random" numbers.

  Why?

  Because you will have a reason for NOT putting two numbers adjacent to each other the same as selecting two which you will put together. Humans use a heuristic...always.

  There are limited particles on the atomic scale universally. There are limited laws. There is only the unfolding of the POSSIBLE permutations over a loooooooooooooong stretch of time.

  Which means what? Everything that is possible will happen. Therefore, randomness does not exist.

  This is not the same thing as there being a deterministic outcome. Counter-intuitively, there is no opposite for the possible events (which we would immediately want to shout :IMPOSSIBLE EVENTS!) which unfold eventually. You cannot postulate the possible from the impossible and they are not suggestive opposites.
• 

  hmike

  Is this the same as the chaos Dr. Malcomb taked about in "Jurassic Park"?
• 

  Pole

  
  
  SNG,

  How can it be shown that any process is truly random?

  How can we show the motion of pollen is water is fully deterministic?

  To go back to Pole's example in the previous thread about the phone calls coming into a building, clearly there is no randomness at play here at all. The people on the phone are presumably calling for a reason. It only seems random to the occupants of the building because they can't predict the calls. But someone with a comprehensive view of the earth could.

  We simply don't know that, dude. There are trillions of factors contributing to a person making a phone call. The trouble is: what if we analyze them all (impossible anyway) and we are faced with the pollen motion problem?

  So now we go back to gas molecules bumping around or radioactive decay. Don't we instantly antiquate ourselves as soon as we say these things are unpredictable or causeless? It seems to me that it is a safer bet to assume that they simply have very complex causes that it is not possible for us to predict, at least not in real-time, and that therefore they seem random.

  Can you name a single such cause? If no, why do you think your assumption is safer?

  I suspect that these things are deterministic, but the universe is already the fastest possible means of calculating future states. So for all practical purposes, they are random for us. Except that they're not. :-)

  Assertions and suspicions - that's fine, because you make it clear that you "suspect" things to be that way. But I think the real safe assumption to make is to stick to the duality of the nature of "random" processes.

  1) On the one hand we have the concept of randomness. Maximum randomness is like maximun enthropy, meaning total unpredictability.

  2) On the other hand you have deterministic cause-effect rules which are specific to particular physical phenomena.

  Whe you combine the two concepts, you get probablity distribution functions. My approach (I'm not sure if it's my approach) is nice, because it explains why there are so many different distributions in Nature.

  Danny and Elswhere,

  Does "real enthropy" "exist"? But you are right the notion of randomness makes a lot of sense in physics (which I know close to nothing about). And you don't need to know this quantum stuff to believe that. I suggest anyone interested should look at:

  a) Brownian Motions (the movement of pollen)

  b) Maxwell's model of gas molecule movement

  c) Smoluchowski's and Einstein's revision of Brownian motions

  The story of the notion of randomness in physics begins at the beginning of the 19th century.

  Pole
• 

  DannyBloem

  Neither you nor I can sit down and even write a stream of "random" numbers.

  I agree here with Terry, that we can not do this.

  Humans are indeed pattern seekers, even if there aren't any paterns, we still see them.
  A funny example of this is the global consiousness project. They use random number generators to predict world shocking events. And yes they see patterns.

  There are limited particles on the atomic scale universally. There are limited laws. There is only the unfolding of the POSSIBLE permutations over a loooooooooooooong stretch of time.

  Which means what? ; ; Everything that is possible will happen. Therefore, randomness does not exist.

  This reasoning is not correct. 1) You assume here that time is unlimited. 2) You assume that the number of particles are constant, that particles can't be created from nothing. 3) you assume that the state particles can be in, is infinite. etc.

  As elsewhere pointed out true randomness does exists on quantum scale....

  Danny
• 

  seattleniceguy

  How can it be shown that any process is truly random?

  How can we show the motion of pollen is water is fully deterministic?

  LOL...I guess the real question is, where is the burden of proof? On the random camp or the non-random camp? To me, it would seem that the notion that something can be uncaused that is the extraordinary claim, so the burden of proof should be on the random camp. So again I ask (I'm not doing this to be argumentative, I actually want to know) how can something be proven to be random?

  Elsewhere, I know the claim is that nuclear breakdown is random. But how can you actually show that it is?

  SNG