Posts by Pole

45

does "randomness" exist?

by googlemagoogle in

this is maybe largely parallel to the "free will" debate.

or if there is such thing like "chance".

many computer languages have a math function "random()".

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

74

What are you in 3 words...........

by ScoobySnax in

jw
friends

.

don't be bashful........ ok i'll start....... kind, worried, thoughtful.. your go.......

Pole

<-------- A HOT BARBARIAN

45

does "randomness" exist?

by googlemagoogle in

this is maybe largely parallel to the "free will" debate.

or if there is such thing like "chance".

many computer languages have a math function "random()".

Pole

Danny,

::not sure what god has to do with it.

See Pascal's wager. lol

Pole

45

does "randomness" exist?

by googlemagoogle in

this is maybe largely parallel to the "free will" debate.

or if there is such thing like "chance".

many computer languages have a math function "random()".

Pole

Danny,
I guess we basically agree and I'm sorry to be such a pain in the ass again but:
::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. ;-)
Edited to add: the very meaning of "function" suggest some sort of rouhgly predictable mapping, doesn't it?
End of the post
Pole

45

does "randomness" exist?

by googlemagoogle in

this is maybe largely parallel to the "free will" debate.

or if there is such thing like "chance".

many computer languages have a math function "random()".

Pole

google,

::is randomness determined?

That's how ya should've phrased your original question. You'd've got no replies at all.

hahaha,

Pole

45

does "randomness" exist?

by googlemagoogle in

this is maybe largely parallel to the "free will" debate.

or if there is such thing like "chance".

many computer languages have a math function "random()".

Pole

See?!? Just I said google has another negative definition of randomness!!!

LOL

Pole of the "I was right, I was right!" class

45

does "randomness" exist?

by googlemagoogle in

this is maybe largely parallel to the "free will" debate.

or if there is such thing like "chance".

many computer languages have a math function "random()".

Pole

Danny,
::I think there is real randomness in the universe, but that is only on sub-atomic scale.
Or is it true determinism? LOL. The chicken or the egg? ;-) Until then I'll trust your assertion. ;-).
::I think we can use a definition of randoness also here, as google is looking for one, I await....
I don't edited:(think) google can google up a genuinely positive definition of randomness. If he can - that would be resplendant. LOL
Cheers,
Pole

45

does "randomness" exist?

by googlemagoogle in

this is maybe largely parallel to the "free will" debate.

or if there is such thing like "chance".

many computer languages have a math function "random()".

Pole

BTW google, fascinating topic, isn't it?

"Randomness" is just a notion used to describe a certain characteristic of what happens around us all of the time. Sometimes people confuse complexity of rules with randomness. This is practical, but not theoretically substantiated.

Also, as I've pointed out in my reply to Danny's post, it's hard to find pure examples of randomness in the physical world since in reality we always have to deal with probability distributions rather than randomness. Randomness is more of a mathematical concept than a physical one.

Pole

45

does "randomness" exist?

by googlemagoogle in

this is maybe largely parallel to the "free will" debate.

or if there is such thing like "chance".

many computer languages have a math function "random()".

Pole

Danny,
I have decided to move my post to this thread:
Danny,
::The point I wanted to make is that that randomness can be used as a building brick, for certain not random things.
Actually I should have been more specific. Probability distribution functions represent the combination of pure randomness and some inherent deterministic rules typical of the specific phenomenon. So in this sense randomness is one of the "building blocks".
::Isn't it so, that those different probability distributions are combinations of more simpler ones? or normal distributions working on non linear things, causing an appearend different distribution, but in the basics just a normal distribution?
Well, a lot depends on the level of analysis. Do you think the distribution rules work at the atomic level? Or below? ;-). Also, normal distribution should not be confused with pure randomness. It's just one of the distributions.
To give you an example of what normal distribution really is. Imagine you have a randomly selected sample of Americans (let's say 1 million) taking an IQ test. Imagine you plot the results for each American on a surface. You mark test participant numbers on the X axis, and tehir respective score on the Y axis. Then you join the 1 million dots to get a line approximating the IQ distribution. Then you take another random sample of the same size and plot another graph. And another 10 samples. Now, for me mathematical randomness would rather mean that each IQ score would be equally probable. So you'd get a flat line for each representative sample (there is a special name for this distribution which I can't remember now).
We know what we get instead is a slightly skewed normal distribution (a bell-shaped gaussian curve). Hopefully, it would be a positively skewed normal distribution. ;-) That means extremely low or extremely high IQs are much less frequent than average values. This by itself means that normal distribution is not equivalent to randomness. It's just very common in nature. It has some cool mathematical properties which make it easy to process and analyse. We still cannot say what is the IQ of the next American we meet, but at least we know what values are more likely than others.
IQ values are generated by so many different factors. Randomness plays a role, but the deterministic part of this phenomenon tells us that it's rather difficult to come across a person with an IQ equal to 200. If you combine the two concepts, you get the notion of probability distribution.
Ok, I'd better stop before skyman kicks my ass for hijacking the thread.

Pole

45

does "randomness" exist?

by googlemagoogle in

this is maybe largely parallel to the "free will" debate.

or if there is such thing like "chance".

many computer languages have a math function "random()".

Pole

1) Actually the tricky thing about the definition of randomness is that we can only define what it is not.

Just like enthropy. The level of "disorder".

2) Randomness in the universe usually combines with deterministic rules giving different probability distributions. So it's just like the wave-particle dillema.

Pole